Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Boundaries Bill,

Paisley Burgh Extension Bill,

Rutherglen Burgh Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SAAR COMMISSION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the action of the Swedish Government in writing to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations proposing that the Council of the League should decide that the presidency of the Saar Governing Commission be alloted by rotation between the members of the Commission; and whether, in view of this Report from the Saar, the British Government will take similar action to that adopted by Sweden?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I believe that the Swedish Government have in fact addressed such a note to the League of Nations, but no copy has yet been received in the Foreign Office. I can give no information as to the attitude my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will adopt if the proposal be discussed by the Council.

EXPENSES QUOTA.

Captain WALTER SHAW: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the 55 members of the League of Nations are still in arrears in
payment of their quota for the expenses in connection with the entire running of the League; with respect to the financial deficiency, in what way is it being met; and are we in any way as a nation or empire attempting to meet it by paying more than our allotted share?

Mr. McNEILL: According to the latest information in my possession 17 members of the League of Nations are in arrears in payment of their contributions for 1924 and earlier years; the financial deficiency so caused is being met from balances in the hands of the League. The answer to the last part of the question is accordingly in the negative.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how far the arrears go back in any case?

Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that question.

ASSEMBLY HALL (COST).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any estimate has been prepared with regard to the total cost of the proposed palace for the League of Nations at Geneva; and what share of this sum is to fall upon Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: Estimates made last year for the proposed new Assembly Hall, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, varied from four and a half million gold francs to more than seven million. The Council at the session now in progress are considering the matter, and also a suggestion that new offices for the Secretariat should be included in the same building. So far as I am aware, no estimate has been made of the probable cost of such a larger building. Great Britain and Northern Ireland contribute rather less than 10 per cent. of the expenses of the League.

Captain SHAW: Where is the money coming from for the building of this palace?

Captain W. BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the financial value of the preservation of world peace?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY

BRITISH AMBASSADOR.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total sum of pay and allowances which would be payable respectively to an Ambassador and to a Minister accredited to Turkey?

Mr. McNEILL: The salaries payable to Ambassadors and Ministers (at whatsoever posts they may be) are £2,500 and £2,000, respectively. The allowance for "frais de représentation" payable to His Majesty's representative at Constantinople is £5,000 a year. It is not at present intended to make any increase in this allowance on the appointment of an Ambassador.

Sir HENRY COWAN: Is it not the fact that Turkey has made good her claim to be a great Power, and ought we not to be represented by an Ambassador, with the full rights attaching to that office?

Mr. McNEILL: We are represented by an Ambassador.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: When is the appointment likely to be made?

Mr. McNEILL: What appointment?

Sir F. WISE: The appointment of Ambassador.

Mr. McNEILL: It has been made.

CHRISTIANS (ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT).

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the alleged branding and ill-treatment of Christian women and children by the Turks; and whether it is proposed that any action shall be taken in the matter either by the British Government or through the League of Nations?

Mr. McNEILL: No reliable evidence in support of these allegations has reached me. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIRLS (FOREIGN THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS).

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many
young English girls are being engaged as dancers and chorus girls for foreign tours; principally in South America, by bogus managers who are sometimes the paid agents of the headquarters of the white slave traffic in those states, and that on arrival there these girls are left stranded, with dishonour the only alternative to starvation; and will he give instructions to have a stricter and more thoroughly adequate supervision of passports issued to all girls accepting a theatrical engagement in a foreign country?

Mr. McNEILL: The number of cases of theatrical artistes stranded abroad which have been reported is very small. In the case of all applications for passports from theatrical artistes special precautions are taken and passports are not issued unless the contracts and conditions of employment are recommended as satisfactory by one of the recognised bodies such as the Actors' Association or the Variety Artistes' Federation. His Majesty's Consuls abroad have instructions to take similar precautions in the case of applications made to them. The care thus taken to safeguard women and girls from the dangers referred to is so stringent that it does not appear feasible to make it more complete; but I would gladly consider any suggestion that the hon. and gallant Member may make for additional precautions of a practical nature.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get an early passage through this House of the Theatrical Managers' Registration Bill, which will stop these nefarious practices?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that arises out of the question, and in any case it should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. PONSONBY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Memorandum on British foreign policy has been drafted by him and circulated to the Press; and, if so, whether he will explain why this course was adopted?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. PONSONBY: Was the very full statement which appeared in the "Chicago Tribune," and was reproduced in the "Morning Post" and the Continental Press, an entire fabrication?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say if it was an entire fabrication, because I did not read it. It certainly was not issued by the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the information promised in the last Parliament on the treatment of international questions by Parliaments in European countries, with a view to bringing White Paper (Miscellaneous) No. 5, 1912 [Cd. 6102], up to date, has yet been received from His Majesty's diplomatic representatives abroad; and when ft will be published?

Mr. McNEILL: The information was received in the course of last year, and was laid before Parliament in Command Paper No. 2282 (Miscellaneous No. 19, 1924) on the 9th December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MRS. STAN HARDING.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make official representation to the American Ambassador, in compliance with the invitation given by him last year, with the view to securing some reparation for Mrs. Stan Harding, who suffered imprisonment under sentence of death in Russia, with consequent shattered health and constitution, on a false charge of espionage made against her by a self-confessed agent of the American secret service?

Mr. McNEILL: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the late Prime Minister to a similar question put on the 21st July, 1924.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the late Ambassador, Mr. Kellogg, knew all about this case and was favourably inclined in regard to it; and as Mr. Kellogg is now a Secretary of State in America might it not be very properly brought forward again through the present Ambassador?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member examines the history of this case, I think he will discover that I am quite as familiar with all the facts as he is himself.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman push it forward?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the reason for the hostility of the Foreign Office towards making representations?

Mr. McNEILL: There is no hostility whatever; there is no ease to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can communicate to the House the date and terms of the reply of the French Government to the last British Note regarding the French debt to Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: No official reply has yet been received from the French Government.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further information to give the House with regard to any suggested date for the commencement of the payment of the Italian debt to this country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): No, Sir. I fear I can add nothing at present to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th February to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: That was in reference to another country. Seeing that the country is enormously interested in that question, can the hon. Gentleman not hold out any hope of giving any information on it?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is misinformed. If he will look at the question he will see that it refers specifically to Italy.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does that prevent the Italian Government paying their debts?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTSHIPS (VISITORS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a Regulation has been recently issued forbidding the crews of lightships to receive visitors on board, and in view of the solitary life these men are obliged to lead and the hardships attending their occupation, he can see his way to modify the Regulation, so as to permit them to receive relatives and friends on hoard?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The Trinity House, with whom I have been in communication. inform me that the question of permitting visitors to board Light Vessels is one that has in the past been carefully considered by them on several occasions. They came to the conclusion that the conditions as to weather were so uncertain, and the difficulties attendant on boarding Light Vessels were such, as to render it inadvisable for the practice to receive official sanction. In the event of a casualty occurring, the Lighthouse Authority might be held responsible, whilst the boarding of Light Vessels by visitors, without restriction of any kind, might well lead to an interference with the duties of the crew and the rest which they require to enable them to discharge those duties by day and night.

Captain GEE: Why is it that the keepers of lighthouses are allowed to receive visitors and the keepers of lightships are not?

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the privilege as regards relatives has been cancelled by the Order to which I refer?

Sir B. CHADWICK: This is a matter entirely under the administration of Trinity House. I will ascertain from Trinity House, in regard to lightships, whether the applications of bona fide relatives receive sympathetic consideration. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a Question on this (lay week, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.

Mr. DUNNICO: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battle-
ships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and aircraft are attached to the Mediterranean Fleet; and how many ships of similar types are maintained by France in the same waters?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY Mr. Bridgeman): As the reply is long, and contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is us follows:

The answer to the first part of the question is:—

8 battleships.
10 cruisers.
2 aircraft carriers together with six flights of aircraft.
36 destroyers (including leaders).
6 submarines.

The following vessels are maintained by France in Mediterranean waters:—

Mediterranean Squadron.

In commission (full or four-fifths complement):

4 battleships.
2 cruisers.
13 destroyers.
7 submarines.

Commissioned reserve (one-half complement):

2 battleships.
4 destroyers.

Training, Coast Defence, and Miscellaneous Units.

In commission (full or four-fifths complement):

2 cruisers.
4 destroyers.
14 submarines.

Normal Reserve.

(One-quarter complement):

5 cruisers.
9 destroyers.
3 submarines.

No aircraft carriers or aircraft are attached to the French Mediterranean Squadron.

4 seaplanes are stationed at Bizerta.
18 aeroplanes are stationed at St. Raphael (Toulon).

MANŒUVRES.

Mr. DUNNICO: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what particular waters British naval manœuvres have
been carried on in the last three years and during the current year, as at present arranged; what expenditure has been so incurred; and whether he can see his way to defer these on the ground of unnecessary expenditure of public money?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With the exception of a reserve fleet exercise in home waters which was carried out in 1924 at the comparatively small cost of £43,000, no naval manœuvres, as opposed to the normal fleet training and exercises, have taken place during the last three years nor are contemplated in the current year.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman put forward the view that it is time the British Navy held manœuvres, just as the American and Japanese navies have been bolding manœuvres recently?

OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make any further statement on the question of the grant of marriage allowances for officers of the Royal Navy?

Major HORE-BELISHA: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to marriage allowance for officers in the Royal Navy; and, if so, whether he can state what that decision is?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together. The matter is still under consideration by the Co-ordinating Committee.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reach some conclusion?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope it will not take very long. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that as far as the Admiralty are concerned we are putting forward a case which we believe to be justifiable in favour of the married naval officers, and it is being considered now by the Co-ordinating Committee. I do not want to raise too sanguine hopes in anybody's mind, and I think it better to be as reticent as I can with regard to the future.

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Captain MACDONALD: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any change in the policy agreed to by the late Government, under which it was arranged that five new cruisers were to be laid down during the present year for the purpose of replacement; if there has been any change in this policy, will he state what is the policy of the present Government in this respect; and, if there has been no change, whether the orders for these cruisers have been placed and are being executed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The five cruisers, the construction of which was approved by the late Government, have already been laid down. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 18th February, His Majesty's Government have decided that it is necessary to investigate further the question of future replacement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will a decision on this matter be reached before the Budget is introduced?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I do not know how long it will take.

Colonel GRETTON: By "laid down," did my right hon. Friend mean that the vessels have been commenced, and are being proceeded with?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what units of the Empire, in addition to Great Britain, are assisting in the creation of the Singapore base; and to what extent?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. As regards the assistance offered by Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) on the 4th instant. As regards the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, the position is as follows:
Prior to the decision of the late Government to discontinue the development of the, Singapore base, the Commonwealth
Government had expressed their intention of submitting to Parliament proposals for a substantial Australian contribution towards the cost of the base, and the New Zealand Parliament had already voted £100,000 as a first contribution. After the late Government's decision, had been announced, the Commonwealth and New Zealand Governments decided to take increased measures for their naval defence, entailing a considerable increase in defence expenditure over a period of years.
It will be necessary for the Australian and New Zealand Governments to take these new commitments into account in considering the extent to which in present circumstances they can co-operate in the development of the Singapore base; but understand that the Commonwealth and New Zealand Governments will consult their Parliaments on the subject as soon as opportunity offers.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Then am I not right in stating that the Empire is united as to the need for this base?

Mr. AMERY: All the Dominions concerned—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather too apt to make little speeches, when asking supplementary questions.

DOCKYARD CHARGEMEN.

Major Sir BEBTRAM FALLE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether length of service in the dockyard or order in passing the inspector's examinations is the method adopted for advancement to chargeman or reversion to tools in the event of reduction in establishment in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): In making appointments to or reversions from the position of chargeman, a number of considerations are taken into account, including proved capacity to perform the duties, and qualification by examination for the superior post of inspector.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HERMES."

Major Sir B. FALLE: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the ship's company of His Majesty's Ship "Hermes," a Portsmouthon
manned ship, which is ordered to be paid off at Chatham in May next, will be sent on foreign service leave from Chatham, or whether they will be first discharged to their own depot at Portsmouth and sent on foreign service leave from there?

Mr. DAVIDSON: They will be sent to their own depot, and thence proceed on foreign service leave.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (STOKERS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why stokers in the Royal Naval Reserve who have completed their second period of five years' service since 1st November, 1914, are not being allowed to enrol for a third period when they are out of work or cannot prove that they are at present employed as firemen; and, in view of the hardship caused in this way, will he alter the Regulations so that stokers shall not be prevented from continuing on the Royal Naval Reserve because of unemployment?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Orders have been given that men with not less than three years' sea service during the War may be accepted for enrolment or re-enrolment in the Royal Naval Reserve, irrespective of their civil employment, provided that they are otherwise eligible under the Regulations.

Mr. THOMSON: Am I to understand that the fact of unemployment would debar a man from being re-enrolled for a further period, although he was otherwise qualified?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should like to consider that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

REFUSAL OF BENEFIT.

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the special inquiries that are being made regarding the ages of all elderly persons registered at the Walworth Road Employment Exchange; and is this inquiry with a view to the withdrawal of benefit from all those persons who may be over 60 years of age?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur-Steel-Maitland): I have looked into the, matter and cannot find that any special inquiries regarding the ages of
elderly persons registered at the Borough Employment Exchange in Walworth Road are being made. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will let me know afterwards to what he refers, and then I can make further inquiries.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that if the provision of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act of 1924, which requires 30 contributions since the beginning of the last insurance year but one, comes into force on 1st October next, it will disqualify from benefit a large percentage of the unemployed in those districts, such as Middlesbrough, where unemployment has been abnormally large for the last four years; and, as this will involve a heavy burden on the poor rates for the maintenance of those so deprived of benefit, will he take steps to bring in an amending Bill to def(r the application of the provision in certain cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I stated in the Debate on Monday, the question whether it will he necessary to propose amending legislation on this point depends on the course of industry and employment in the coming months: I cannot say more than this at present.

Mr. THOMSON: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman he good enough to consult with these local authorities—not merely his own officials, but the boards of guardians in these districts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly take opinions generally with regard to any course that may be adopted, hut, in the end. I must take the decision myself.

Mr. W. THORNE: Do not forget West Ham.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received resolutions on this matter from various boards of guardians?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already stated that I have.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men are being deprived of unemployment benefit in the Borough of St. Marylebone, and elsewhere, by a committee of one, contrary to the provisions laid down in the Unemployment Insurance Act: and, if so.
will he cause inquiries to be made with a view to preventing further occurrences of this nature?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The rule for the composition of Rota Committees provides that two persons shall form a quorum, but that, if two members are unable to be present at the hearing, the case should be dealt with by the remaining member, and his recommendation should be submitted for confirmation to a fully-constituted sub-committee. This practice has been followed at the Edgware Road Employment Exchange, and I am given to understand that on only a few occasions has it been necessary for claims to be considered by a single member of the committee in the first instance.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Were these cases confirmed later on?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me notice of any particular cases, I will always have them inquired into.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that when such one-man decisions are given, if they are against the applicant, they shall be considered again by an ordinary committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is exactly what I have said.

Major CRAWFURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider this is a satisfactory method of dealing with applicants, to have applications heard by only one member of the committee, and does be not realise that, even if a decision of one member is reported to others, it must necessarily influence their judgment, with the result that the final decision is not really judicial?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is arguing the point.

Mr. JOHN BECKETT: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit who have been disallowed since and through the new Regulation issued by him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of applicants for unemployment, benefit in Great Britain whose claims have been disallowed because of failure
to satisfy the contribution conditions for waiver of the first statutory condition is in round numbers, 11,000.

Mr. TAYLOR: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a resolution from the Lincoln Board of Guardians asking him to suspend the recent Regulation with regard to unemployed insurance and whether, seeing that the with drawal of unemployment benefit places an additional burden on the ratepayers in industrial towns where there is a large volume of unemployment, he will take action to ensure that no additional restrictions shall be placed on the issue of unemployment insurance to unemployed workpeople?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received the resolution in question. As regards Lincoln in particular, I would point out that the number disqualified under the new rule is 26. On the question generally. I would refer the hon. Member to what was said in last Monday's Debate on this subject.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attitude of the Employment Exchanges is not only forcing them on to the Poor Law, but penalising the most thrifty section of the population, because a man has to become a pauper before he can get any Poor Law relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. I must not be taken as accepting that conclusion.

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any process of headquarters investigation being frequently carried out in order to eliminate the undeserving, from the benefit of unemployment pay, especially amongst the younger recipients?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Under the normal machinery for the administration of unemployment benefit, investigation is made each week by inquiries of employers, etc., into the title to benefit of a certain proportion of the claimants in receipt of benefit, and at each Employment Exchange there is an officer or officers specially assigned to this duty. There are also standing arrangements for the review of authorisations of claims by officers from divisional offices. In addition, special investigations arc made from time to time in selected areas as
to the title to benefit of all the claimants to benefit in that area. These investigation are conducted on instructions from headquarters by local staff under the directions of the divisional controller in charge of the area concerned. It is not the practice to employ headquarters officers on these investigations.

Mr. LANSBURY: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applicants for extended benefit during the period 1st August, 1924, to 8th March, 1923, have had their claims rejected on the following grounds: not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment, insurable employment not likely to be available, not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years, etc., not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, and not willing to accept suitable employment; and will he give the figures separately for London, Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield and Middlesbrough?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
May I take this opportunity of pointing out to Members that, while I am very anxious to supply them with any information in my power, the compilation of some statistics takes a very large amount of time on the part of many of the skilled members of the staff of the Department, and I would therefore beg hon. Members to hear this consideration in mind in asking for figures which involve extraction from a number of different sources.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us the totals for the towns, in view of the statements which are being continually made as to the number of men who have been knocked off? Certain figures were publicly stated the other night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I do not want to make a speech, but I want to get the information now.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The rejections under the recent Circular were not asked for by the hon. Member in his question. I am extracting the figures I
now give from the answer which will be circulated. The totals as regards the different towns are, London, 53,909; Glasgow, 11,745; Manchester, 6,145; Sheffield, 5,807; Middlesbrough, 1,272;

FIGURES in respect of the month ended 8th March are not yet available in summary form, but the figures in respect of the period 1st August, 1924, to 9th February, 1925, are as follows:


Reasons for rejection.
Applications for Extended Unemployment Benefit rejected by Local Employment Committees.


London
Glasgow.
Manchester.
Sheffield.
Middlesbrough.
Great Britain


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
4,371
2,382
558
695
145
28,599


Insurable employment not likely to be available.
1,379
438
25
344
96
8,338


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.
19,545
3,218
1,082
1,772
322
170,070


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
11,702
2,848
1,764
861
709
58,564


Other reasons (failure to attend hearing, etc.).
19,912
2,859
2,716
2,135
—
57,552


Total rejections
53,909
11,745
6,145
5,807
1,272
223,123


Some of those entered under the last heading ("Failure to attend hearing etc.") may have had their claims allowed at a subsequent hearing, and the total number of final rejections is therefore somewhat less than that given in the Table.; precise figures on this point are not available.

STAMP REGULATIONS.

Mr. BROMLEY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the suffering caused in Barrow-in-Furness by the new regulations with regard to the number of stamps required to entitle to unemployed benefit; that its operation is throwing many people on to guardians' relief, increasing the rates of the town and adding to the burden of the debt which the town already bears; and, if so, is he prepared to give further consideration to the problem?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number disqualified at Barrow under the new rule is 55 and is approximately in the same proportion to the total number of unemployed on the register, as is the case for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am aware, however, that unemployment is very acute in Barrow, and I shall he very ready to consider any schemes that may be put forward by the locality or by the hon. Member on their behalf.

and for the whole of Great Britain, 223,123, The answer gives the numbers of reductions under the different headings with which the hon. Member is familiar.

Following is statement prepared:

Mr. CONNOLLY: Can we have any circular in which the Minister would make tr. clear whether the applicant is necessarily debarred, if he has not stuck on the stamps from the commencement of the operation of the Act? There is some misunderstanding.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down?

Mr. SCURR: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed received benefit in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney for the months of December, January and February; how many have failed to qualify for unemployment benefit owing to the new Regulations increasing the number of stamps required; and how many who had so failed to qualify were over 55 years of age?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of applicants for benefit who
were recorded on the registers of the Stepney Employment Exchange at the end of December, January and February last were 8,282, 8,738 and 8,298 respectively. I am unable to state the number of separate individuals represented by these figures, but it was no doubt considerably larger than the number on the register at any particular date. The number of persons in this area whose claims to benefit have been disallowed since 19th February, because of failure to satisfy the contribution conditions referred to, was 35. I am unable to give the ages of these persons.

STEPNEY.

Mr. SCURR: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, were on the Employment Exchange registers for the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney for the years 1922, 1923 and 1924; the total amount of unemployment benefit paid for the same period; and how many of the male recipients were ex-service men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the lion. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Date (end of month).
Number recorded on the registers of the Stepney Employment Exchange.


Men.
Women.


1922
March
6,601
1,868


June
5,449
854


September
5,677
802


December
6,259
1,462


1923
March
6,498
1,555


June
7,070
1,236


September
5,980
1,175


December
6,771
1,617


1924
March
6,153
1,176


June
6,476
981


September
6,547
1,037


December
6,592
1,677

Regular periodic information as to the number of ex-service men included in the above figures is not available, but as a result of a special census taken on 24th March, 1924, there were found to be 2,258 men of this category registered as

unemployed at the Stepney Employment Exchange.

The approximate amounts of unemployment benefit (including an estimated figure for benefit paid through associations) paid in the area in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 were £268,000, 2270,000 and £288,000, respectively.

SHIPBUILDING YARDS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give figures to show the number of vacant berths in the shipbuilding yards of Great Britain, and the number of unemployed in that industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no official information as to the number of vacant berths in the shipbuilding yards of Great Britain. The number of persons in the shipbuilding industry insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts who were recorded as unemployed on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on 23rd February, 1925, was 76,661, or 32'8 per cent.

DOCK LABOURERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour why dock labourers are singled out to sign as unemployed twice a day, while men working alongside them in the shipyards, for example, have only to sign twice a week; if he is aware of the grievance felt by dock labourers on this account, and also that men frequently lose a chance of work on an incoming ship through having to attend the Exchange to sign the second time; and whether he has now reconsidered this matter with a view to an improvement in the Regulations?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Dock workers claiming unemployment benefit are required to attend twice daily in view of the special conditions of their employment and method of engagement. So far as I am aware, these conditions do not apply in the same way to shipyard workers, but if they did in any district it would be necessary to apply the requirement in their cases also.
The times of attendance are fixed so as to follow closely upon the calls at which the men are engaged, and I have no reason to suppose that the requirement lessens their opportunities of obtaining employment.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men who have to apply twice a day have to travel a considerable distance from the point where they would find employment to the exchange to sign on, and in view of the fact that in different trades men are subject to casual employment, why is this distinction made in the two cases

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Because of distinctions, so far as I am aware, in the periods for which they are engaged. If the hon. Member has any facts which show that it is unfair on one group as compared with the other, if lie or the other hon. Member will put down a question and confer with us afterwards we will go into it in order to try to make it fair.

MEDICAL ATTENTION.

Mr. GROVES: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information in regard to the health of the unemployed men and women of the country who have been out of employment for two years and upwards; and whether, in view of the fact that such persons may be assumed to be quite outside the National Health Insurance benefits, he has considered the issue of instructions to the various boards of guardians to arrange special medical attention to persons so affected?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir K. Wood): I think the hon. Member has overlooked the effect of the prolongation of Insurance Act, 1921, which is still in force In view of this Act it has not been thought necessary to make any special inquiries as to the health of unemployed persons, and my right hon. Friend is not aware that there is any need for the issue of such instructions as are suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is because I have not overlooked the fact that I am asking the question? In West Ham there is a large number of poor people who are outside the scope of the National Health Insurance scheme, and are really suffering from the need of the extension of the Department's work.

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is that I think the district medical service is available to those people, just as to the rest of the community.

EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).

Mr. THURTLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if British Home Grown Sugar, Limited, is on the King's Roll; and, if so, when it was put on?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, which, I presume, is the company referred to, is not on the King's Roll, but I am informed that it has no factory employés at present and that its factory at Kelham is operated by the English Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited. The latter corporation is an the roll in respect of its Cantley factory, and has, I understand, taken steps with a view to being put on the roll in respect of the Kelham factory.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a firm may get on the King's Roll by employing ex-service men as clerical employés, quite apart from factory workers, if they employ the right proportion, and will he inquire, in that case, why this firm are not on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly inquire into the case. May I add that my object is to try to get every firm that can be got on to the King's Roll, whether in respect of clerical employés or others, and I will certainly make inquiries as to whether this firm has a sufficient number of clerical employés to get on the King's Roll.

Mr. THURTLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Sudan Plantations Corporation is on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No company of that name is on the King's National Roll.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF LABOUR (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government proposes to introduce an Eight-Hour Day Bill this Session for the purpose of ratifying the International Labour Convention; and, if so, can he indicate an approximate date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot add anything at present to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member
for Elland (Mr. Robinson) on the 10th of February.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the great benefit that would accrue to this country as a result of a general acceptance of the Convention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid I cannot say "Yes" to that question, because it needs much more detailed examination, and the Matter in that ease can really only be elucidated in the course of a debate in the House.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if such a Bill were passed, it would dispense with a good cleat of the safeguarding of industries that is in contemplation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINE CHEMICALS INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state, for any convenient date early in 1921, what was the total number of men employed in the manufacture of fine chemicals; and what is the corresponding number to-day?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The only available figures are those obtained from the Census, which show that in June, 1921, the total number of men, of 20 years of age and upwards, inclusive of employers, managers, etc., enumerated as engaged in the manufacture of drugs and fine chemicals in Great Britain was 11,442. Figures are not available for any later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTERIAL ROAD, ELSTREE (WORKERS' WAGES).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the wages paid to men working upon the arterial road scheme on the Watford by-pass road at Elstree agree with the award of the Conciliation Board, or whether an increase of Id. per hour should have been paid since last September; and whether accommodation is provided for meals, washing, and sanitary purposes?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the wages paid to unskilled labour. The rate of wages paid to unskilled labourers employed on the Watford by-pass road near Elstree is 1s. 1½d. per hour, which agrees with the award of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors' Conciliation Board for comparable areas. No change has been made by the Board in this rate since December, 1923. Accommodation for messing, shelter, and sanitary purposes is provided by the contractors under the terms of their contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the admitted need of conference between all parties in industry in order to secure the removal of suspicion and other causes of industrial strife, he will take steps to invite representatives of the industries to meet once more in national industrial conference?

Mr. COUPER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the depressed condition of the shipbuilding and engineering industries, he will reconsider a suggestion he made in Glasgow in November, 1923, for a conference of representatives of those interests to inquire into the whole position in regard to unemployment in the shipbuilding and allied industries?

Captain MACMILLAN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the state of the shipbuilding industry; and whether he will consider the question of appointing a representative committee to inquire into all the causes of the disparity between British and Continental costs of production, in the hope of arriving at an agreed policy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The matter raised by the two latter questions comes within the terms of reference of the Balfour Committee on. Trade and Industry, who already have it under consideration and have begun to take evidence upon it; but I am certainly of opinion that if, in addition, employers and employed in the two trades concerned
agreed to examine the whole position together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill suggests, nothing but good will result. As regards the suggestion of my Noble Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), the question whether a national conference of employers' and workers' representatives might usefully be summoned after the Balfour Committee has reported, and after some of the leading trades have themselves arrived at a measure of agreement, is one which I shall be prepared to consider at the proper time, but I am convinced that there would be no advantage in calling together a national conference until there has been a frank and thorough discussion by the representatives of each of the principal industries with regard to the problem as it affects them.

Mr. LEES SMITH: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Report of the Balfour Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the urgency of this problem, will the Prime Minister state if he has any idea how long the Balfour Committee will be in their deliberations, and will he make every effort to speed up the sittings of that Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am as anxious as anyone for a speedy Report. If any hon. Gentleman interested will put down a question I will have a definite reply given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Might I ask a further question? Is there any limit as to what is the purview of the Balfour Committee in regard to calling evidence before them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that question should be put to the Board or Trade, under whom the Committee is functioning.

Oral Answers to Questions — BENGAL (DEPUTY-GOVERNOR).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir John Kerr has been appointed Deputy-Governor of Bengal; and, if so, why the Senior Executive Councillor, Sir Abdur Rahmin, was not appointed, in view of the general practice in such matters?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No "general practice" can be said to exist in respect of the administration of an Act which has only been a few months in operation. The right hon. Gentleman presumably has in mind the provisions relating to the filling of temporary vacancies, but these provisions have no application to the selection of substitutes for Governors proceeding on leave.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there anything in the Act passed last year authorising the change of practice which has been usual for 60 years? Has the Noble Lord a single precedent for the place of a Governor, who is not on the spot, being taken by anybody except the Vice-President or the Senior Executive Councillor?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Act of last year could not possibly have altered a practice that did not exist: in other words, the Act of last year gave statutory authority to a condition of affairs that hail previously not existed in India. There can be no precedent at all for what is done under the Act in the filling of the vacancies which occur.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the filling up of vacancies has never occurred in the past? Does he suggest that there has ever been any practice other than the one indicated in the question?

Earl WINTERTON: I say that the practice in regard to the filling of ordinary vacancies cannot be considered analogous to the Act passed last year. The situation which has arisen under that Act is that for the first time 'in the history of British India permission is given to the Secretary of Slate and the Governor-General to grant leave to Governors. This had never previously been allowed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we importing into that Act a new principle which is permanently to be used in India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. PONSONBY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been
called to a statement made before the Soviet Central Executive Committee at Tiflis by the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, M. Tchitcherin, in which he commented on the statement made in this House by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the resumption of negotiations with Russia and declared that the Soviet Government wished for peace and understanding with Great Britain and were always ready for negotiations; and whether His Majesty's Government will take advantage of this declaration to invite the Soviet Government to formulate suggestions on which negotiations may be reopened?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech of M. Tchitcherin, People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., at the meeting of the Soviet Central Committee in Tiflis, in which he said that earnest attempts must. be made to reach agreement with Great Britain and that the Russian Government was ready for negotiations: and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. R. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of both questions is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, I can only repeat that His Majesty's Government will carefully examine any proposals put forward by the Soviet Government.

Mr. PONSONBY: Have the Soviet Government ever been informed of the points in the Treaties signed last year to which the present Government have taken objection?

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How can they get these proposals unless some conference takes place?

Mr. McNEILL: It is as easy for the Soviet Government to make proposals as it is for Ms Majesty's Government.

Captain BENN: Why did the Home Secretary say on Monday that the war between the world and the Soviet was definite?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better ask the Home Secretary.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are there any obstacles in higher places in regard to the recognition of Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I did not catch that question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING TRADE.

Mr. SCURR: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the low wages paid to young women engaged in the catering trade in London; and whether he Will consider the advisability of establishing a trade board for the industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given on 4th March to questions on tins subject by the Noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire West (Marquess of Hartington) and ethers.

MANUAL WORKERS (WAGES AND HOURS).: 

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the proposed inquiry into the earnings and hours of labour of manual workers in manufacturing industries in 1924, any arrangements will be made whereby the information supplied will he verified as accurate by responsible representatives of the workers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information to be obtained in this inquiry consists of the tabulated results of details given voluntarily and in confidence by individual firms. I think I am entitled to assume that the details will he given accurately and, in any case, owing to their confidential nature they cannot be divulged to anyone outside the Department.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the employer asked whether production has decreased in industry where the hours have been reduced and owing to that reduction of hours?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should need notice of a question like that; perhaps the hon. Member will give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision to reduce the pay of new entrants to the Navy, Army and Air Force; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of the decision?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates any reduction in the pay of recruits and new officers in the three fighting Services?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is at present being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIES (GERMANY).

Captain BENN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the effect of the reparation demands of the Allies on wages and conditions of labour in Germany; and whether the German Government is free to grant subsidies to industries competing with British products?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be possible at the present stage to estimate the effect of reparation payments on wages and conditions of labour. The German Government is free to grant subsidies to industries in the same way as any other Government, so long as the consequent burden on her budget does not interfere with the execution of her reparation obligations under the Dawes Plan.

Captain BENN: Has the Prime Minister any information showing whether the German Government gave subsidies to the shipbuilders who recently took orders of ours?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information at present. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down any question of that nature to the Board of Trade.

Captain BENN: I cannot do so. They will not take it.

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have no information at present. I am making inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH AIR BASE, CHERBOURG.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any and, if so, what information about the projected French air base at Cherbourg?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I understand that the projected air base at Querqueville, near Cherbourg, will, according to the plans of the French Ministry of Marine. consist of one squadron of fighting aeroplanes.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard nothing about the new developments, for instance, the underground construction which is contemplated at Cherbourg?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I have not.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENT).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 61.
asked the Attorney-General whether any inquiry has been made recently into the present methods of creating justices of the peace. and as to whether the system is in conformity with the wishes of the public?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): An inquiry into the whole system of appointing justices of the peace was held by a Royal Commission which sat as recently as 1910, and the present system is based on the Report of that Commission. My right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no reason to suppose that the present system of appointment is not in conformity with the wishes of the public.

Sir F. NELSON: Am I correct in assuming that the advisory committees are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant?

Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid I should have to ask for notice of that question.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, so far as Scotland, at any rate, is concerned, that these appointments are made largely as a
matter of patronage by those who are in authority; and those who have been elected as representatives of the people are sometimes set aside?

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Labour Government, appointed 73 magistrates at one swoop, and that they were nearly all members of the Labour party?

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the Northern counties with the present system?

Sir D. HOGG: No, Sir, I am not.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES COMMITTEE (BERKSHIRE).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the present occupations of the farmers' and workers' representatives. respectively, on the Berkshire Agricultural Wages Committee?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I regret, that the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is not in my possession.

SHEEP (DOUBLE DIPPING).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give effect to the representations made by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, whereby it would not be possible for any local authority to restrict the movement or to compel the unnecessary double dipping of clean sheep?

Mr. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATENT MEDICINES.

Mr. GROVES: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the conditions under which patent medicines are manufactured and sold in this country a compared with other countries; whether he is aware that ill-informed persons are attracted by advertisements
and thereby forego proper medical attention; and whether he will consider what steps he can take to ensure public: health and safety in this respect?

Sir K. WOOD: The question of some statutory regulation of the conditions in which patent medicines are advertised and sold is under consideration, but unless a substantial measure of agreement can be secured, my right. hon. Friend does not anticipate that it will be possible to introduce legislation during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. GROVES: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hardship involved in the breaking up of the homes of persons in receipt of Poor Law assistance caused by the action of certain boards of guardians objecting to grant relief to those whom they consider non-resident; if he will take into consideration the possibility of amending the law in this respect so that Poor Law authorities shall grant relief to all those who are in need, thus preventing the removal of recipients to other places of settlement purely for legal reasons; and whether lie is aware of the particular case in this regard where recently a woman and her family were instructed to proceed from the West Ham area to the Epping institution on the grounds that no settlement had been effected, although the family had resided in West Ham for three years and the parents were on the burgess list?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties arising from the law of settlement, but the matter is one which cannot be dealt with apart from the general question of Poor Law reform. He has made inquiries into the case mentioned in the last part of the question, and understands that the family referred to arc continuing to receive outdo-or relief in the West Ham Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING,

CONVERSION INTO FLATS.

Mr. PENNY: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the failure of local authorities to avail themselves of their powers under Section 5 (1) (c) of
the Housing and Town Planning Act. 1923, which provides for the return of rates levied on increased assessments in the case of houses converted into flats, he proposes to introduce legislation to make the provision mandatory, or by some other method encourage the conversion of large houses at present unoccupied?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is afraid that he cannot undertake to introduce further legislation on this subject, but will consider whether he can again call the attention of local authorities to the powers given by the section.

CONDEMNED HOUSES.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the necessity of obtaining an accurate estimate of the number of houses required, he can see his way to obtain statistics of the number of condemned houses which are still inhabited, and of the number of persons occupying these houses, including children, particularly in view of the fact that without these statistics asked for no accurate estimate of the housing shortage can be made?

Sir K. WOOD: information is already furnished to my right hon. Friend in the annual reports of medical officers of health as to the numbers of houses found, after inspection, to be unfit for human habitation. According to the last reports, the number of such houses reported during the year 1923 was 14,367. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the value of the further information asked for in the hon. Member's question would be commensurate with the labour and cost involved in obtaining it.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the total number of working-class houses included in the 14,000 to which he has referred?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I must ash for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL PRODUCTION (ROYALTIES).

Mr. HARDIE: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the amount of royalties, per ton, paid upon the raw materials necessary to produce a ton of steel in Germany?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that I am unable to furnish precise information, as the total royalties paid vary according to the source of the ore used, and a good deal of ore is imported. So far as relates to materials raised from mines, other than iron mines, in Prussia, I understand that royalties charged are at a rate of 2 per cent. of the value of the minerals.

Mr. HARDIE: Where does the money go?

Mr. SAMUEL: It will probably go to the Prussian State but I believe that the effect on the price of steel, owing to the difference between the English and German royalty, is trivial.

Mr. HARDIE: When the hon. Gentleman expresses the opinion that the difference is trivial, is he referring to a difference of 10s. 10d. per ton on steel as made from hematite ore being trivial?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am merely dealing with the difference arising out of royalties charged here compared with those charged in Germany.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the unsatisfactory answer which I have received, I will raise this question of royalties on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. HARDIE: 71.
asked the President of the Board of. Trade whether, in view of the fact that other countries are producing steel cheaper than our own, he will introduce legislation to abolish royalties on the nation's raw materials?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I am not sure whether the hon. Member's proposal is one for the confiscation of royalties or for their purchase by the State. A policy of confiscation would not only be morally line justifiable but economically disastrous in its general influence and effect. State purchase extinguishes one set of liabilities by the creation of another; and it is difficult to see how this change could materially affect present costs.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Government are really anxious to get a, reduction in the cost of the nation's raw material what objection have they to abolishing these royalties?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL STAFF).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions, with reference to his promise that medical officers discharged from the medical staff employed by the Ministry would be given sessional work on medical boards, whether he will give definite instructions to heads of the various areas that this practice must be continued?

Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is in accordance with the existing practice of the Ministry, and instructions are being issued accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (CIVILIAN CLERKS AND HARNESS CLEANERS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the wages of civilian clerks and harness cleaners employed by Territorial units have been reduced by 25 per cent. by order of the Territorial Association; if he will say whether Territorial brigade headquarters are War Department offices; whether Army Council Instruction 159, 1914, applies to clerks employed by them; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of securing a better wage for harness cleaners employed on full time?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The wages of civilian clerks and harness cleaners employed in connection with Territorial Army units are fixed by the Territorial Army County Association and are not governed by Army Council Instruction 159 of 1924. The clerical staff of Territorial Brigade offices are not War Department employés. Any representations which the hon. and gallant Member has to make should be addressed to the particular county association concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL VANS, GLASGOW.

Mr. HARDIE: 76.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of accidents to pedestrians caused by the excessive speed of postal vans in the Pronan ward; and whether he intends to have the speed of such vans reduced?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to deal with this question. I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these postal vans are driven at a much greater speed than other vehicles?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not making any admission of that, kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRESCO PAINTING "EXECUTION OF MONTROSE."

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the. First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been called to the error in the descriptive account of the fresco painting of the execution of Montrose, which asserts the execution took place in the Grassmarket, Edinburgh, whereas it took place in the High Street, of which this picture is a correct representation; and will he take steps to correct the mistake?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The inscription in question was composed by a high authority on the period, and is supported by such authorities as Gardner, Sir Walter Scott and Hume Brown. In these circumstances the First Commissioner cannot agree to any alteration of the inscription unless further evidence is forthcoming in support of the hon. Member's contention.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to submit to him the most recent authorities on the question, which will undoubtedly prove that the inscription has been entirely wrong for the last 10 or 15 years?

Mr. JOHNSTON: if this painting is a correct representation of the historical incident referred to, why is it that there should be any question of having it altered?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am sure the First Commissioner will be delighted to receive any representation on this point. I understand that there is a good deal of artistic licence in the picture.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the penultimate line of this question declares that this picture is a correct representation of this historical incident, and, if that is so, why should the hon. Member desire that it should be altered?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better meet in the Lobby.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (STOKE-ON-TRENT).

Mr. CLOWES: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. if his attention has been drawn to a practice, prevailing in the Stoke-on-Trent district, whereby industrial insurance companies dealing with workmen's compensation eases urge persons in receipt of partial compensation to accept reductions, in order that they may draw benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and later to go into Court for abolition of compensation, on the plea that the person has recovered from injury and is seeking employment; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received no representations in this matter, and before replying he would like to be sure that he clearly understands what is the precise hardship complained of. If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish him with a full statement, he will gladly go into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK RATE (INCREASE).

Mr. W. THORNE: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it will cost the Government in consequence of the bank rate being increased on Thursday last by 1 per cent.?

Mr. GUINNESS: So many factors are involved that I think it would be impossible to make any reliable estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRANT).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the University of Wales will be permitted to participate in the increased grants as recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and
whether, in fixing the amount of the grain which may be available for the Welsh University, regard will be had to the failure of the Treasury to fulfil its promise to provide a pound for every pound raised by the University authorities?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no doubt that in the recommendations as to the application of the grants in question, which will in due course be submitted to the Treasury by the University Grants Committee, the needs of the University of Wales will be as fully considered as the needs of other Universities. I cannot anticipate the Committee's recommendations, but I should expect that in accordance with their usual practice they will take a large variety of circumstances into account, including the amount of financial support locally contributed. The adoption of any rigid mechanical formula is, however, inconsistent with any general scheme for distribution of the large fixed sums now voted for University education. I should perhaps point out that the University of Wales already receives a generous grant from the Treasury, and that the proportion of its total income derived from Parliamentary grants is considerably above the average for Universities in England and Scotland.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman affirm the statement made in the question that the Treasury has not fulfilled its obligation in regard to a promise made in 1918?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is true that in 1918, during the War, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a promise of the kind referred to, but it is obvious that he cannot bind Parliament in perpetuity, under quite different conditions, where, instead of a grant of £500,000, there is now one of £1,500,000. We have to hold the scales even between Wales and the other parts of the Kingdom.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much is proposed to be granted to the Welsh University under these conditions, because there has been a cutting down of the grants to the Welsh University?

Mr. GUINNESS: It depends on the recommendations of the University Grants Committee.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh University is not asking for a grant in perpetuity, but for the fulfilment of a promise given for five years?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the promise was only for five years, and it was given in 1918, it has clearly lapsed.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: If the grants were decided on the number of students, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Wales would have a very small grant?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAKE VICTORIA NYANZA (SHIPS' OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiries and ascertain whether His Majesty's ships employed on Lake Victoria Nyanza carry a proper complement of officers and whether he will take steps to see that officers employed on these vessels are not kept on duty for abnormal hours except on special occasions?

Mr. AMERY: Several additional appointments have been or are being made to keep pace with the rapid expansion of trade. I will consult the Acting Governor of Renya, but in the first place I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me any information he may have received regarding abnormal hours of: duty.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a special report from the Director of Railways in that part of the world, as he will be able to give full information?

Mr. AMERY: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIVE LABOUR, SOUTH AFRICA.

Captain BENN: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Bill introduced into the South African Parliament designed to give effect to the decision the White trades unions to prevent the natives from ever becoming skilled labourers: and whether, in view of the
provisions of the South Africa Act, His Majesty s Government is prepared to intimate that, in the event of the passing of this Bill, it would be impossible to contemplate the surrender of Imperial control over the native territories?

Mr. AMERY: The Bill in question is the one referred to in my answer to the. hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 23rd February. As the measure is entirely one for the Parliament of I he Union of South Africa I do not think the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is a practical one.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present composition of the committee which interviews applicants for posts in the diplomatic service, and what are its terms of reference?

Mr. McNEILL: The Board of Selection, which is set up annually in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service of 1014, to interview candidates for the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service, has been composed of the First Civil Service Commissioner, two, or three senior officials of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, and two, or three non-official members, who have kindly lent their services and among whom it has been the practice to include one or two members of this House and one gentleman of business experience. The actual personnel of the Board varies from year to year. Its function is to decide which candidates possess suitable qualifications for entry into the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In view of the considerable number of Members who desire to take part in the discussion on the First Order to-day, will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what he proposes to do at quarter past eight? Does he propose to take the Second Reading, or to give us a somewhat longer time for discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I had hopes of getting the Second Reading, but I recognise that the request made is not unreasonable, and I shall be prepared to give a second half-day in order to make up a whole day for the discussion. I would ask the Leaders of the Opposition parties whether they could meet me in this respect, that we might adjourn the Debate between eight and eight-fifteen in time formally to commit the second Order to a Select Committee. It is a Bill about which I understand there is no controversy. It follows the recommendations of the Colefax Committee, and is to go to a Select Committee. We are very anxious to get, on with it as quickly as possible.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am quite agreeable to that course.

Captain BENN: My hon. Friend (Sir G. Collins) has asked me to say that, as far as we are concerned, we cordially agree to the course suggested by the Prime Minister. With respect to the business to-morrow, which some of us regard as important, and in view of the fact that no statement in explanation has been made, could one of the Ministers of the Air Department speak early in the Debate, and expound the change which has been made in the Estimates for the first time this year?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes. If it is for the convenience of the House, either the Under-Secretary or myself will give such an explanation towards the beginning of the Debate.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

COAL PRICES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will draw attention to the failure of the Government to deal with the question of coal prices to the consumer, and move a Resolution.

PROFIT-SHARING SCHEMES.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight. I will call attention to the progress of profit-sharing schemes, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE EMIGRATION.

Captain HOLT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight;, I will draw attention to the question of Empire Emigration, and move a Resolution.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. D. R. GRENFELL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will draw attention to the question of Secondary Education, and move a Resolution.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS (1887 TO 1911) AMENDMENT.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1F0.37 to 1911. in their application to certain articles dealt with in the fancy jewellery anal allied trades.
For a considerable time this particular branch of trade has been in a rather confused state, because of the rather vague definition put upon different expressions and terms commonly used In the trade. Last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs introduced a Bill similar in character to that which I am now asking the leave of the House to introduce. I understand that he had consultations from time to time with representatives of the administration then in office, and that no serious objection was raised by the leaders on the other side of the House. Since then further correspondence on one or two disputed points has passed between the Birmingham Jewellers' and Silversmiths' Association, and the Board of Trade, the Customs authorities, and the authorities of the Goldsmiths Hall, as a result of which complete agreement has been arrived at. as to the importance of a Measure of this kind being introduced for the safety of those engaged in this particular trade.
The Bill as redrafted this year has met with the approval of the Board of Trade and of Goldsmiths Hall. It does not seek in any way to impose any restriction upon trade. All that it asks for is that the terms employed in this particular branch of trade should be more clearly defined. It asks also that the conflicting meanings which are now attached to trade expressions in fancy jewellery and allied busi-
ness in this country should be more clearly understood by the public, so that any deception which may possibly be practised in selling imitation jewellery to the public may be effectively prevented. At present there is no means by which the public can have a clear indication of the quality of the article of imitation jewellery which is sold. All the large organisations concerned in this industry, including manufacturers as well as merchants, are agreed in support of this Bill. For example the Birmingham Jewellers' and Silversmiths' Association, who are entirely a combination of manufacturer with a membership of 533 and one of the recognised parties in the country in connection with the jewellery trade, are promoting this Bill and are unanimous in its support. We have in the second place the London Wholesale Jewellers' and Allied Traders' Association, who are factors of real and imitation jewellery, also supporting the provisions of this Bill. In the third place we have the National Association of Goldsmiths, comprising 1,800 members, who equally desire that the provisions of this Bill should be put into operation.
The value of introducing legislation of this nature will. I hope, be apparent to the House when I state that both Canada and Australia found the advantage of adopting a Measure of the kind which I am now submitting some years ago, in order that frauds in the sale of these articles can be prevented in their respective countries. The various parties who are interested in this trade have given strong expression of their views in support of this Bill. They desire to have such terms as "gold case," for example, "gold front," "rolled gold," "gold filled," and "gilt," clearly defined. Even the word "gilt" may at present be applied indiscriminately to a whole series of articles without any responsibility on the person selling the article to indicate precisely what it means. In the Schedule attached to this Bill these definitions are set forth. We hope, therefore, that if the Bill becomes law there will he adequate protection for the public purchasing articles of this nature. I may refer to the action taken by the authorities in England in relation to this particular trade. A communication was addressed in September by the Department of Overseas Trade to the Birming-
ham Jewellers' Association, in which they say:
The Indian Customs authorities have recently adopted the definition of 'rolled gold,' 'gold filled,' 'rolled gold plate,' 'gilt,' etc., formulated by your association at a public meeting held in Birmingham,
of which they give the date. The Indian authorities have accepted without question the wise decision of the Birmingham jewellers. Similarly, we have such admirable bodies as the Edinburgh Goldsmiths' Association unanimously in support of this Bill, as also the Blackburn Branch of the National Association of Goldsmiths, and the Scottish Association of Watchmakers and Jewellers. This is a short Bill setting forth in very brief form these provisions which will enable this trade to be carried on with greater advantage to those engaged in it at the moment, both in manufacture and in distribution, and 11th greater safety to the public who purchase these articles. I hope that the Bill will be regarded as non-controversial. I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite last year took no exception to the provisions of the short Bill which was then proposed, and I hope that the House will allow me to introduce this Measure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can see no necessity for bringing in this Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule, and look upon it as simply a waste of the time of Parliament. I listened very carefully to every word spoken by the hon. Member, who has given no explanation whatever of the Bill. All he done has been to quote various authorities and various resolutions of silversmiths and goldsmiths who say that they are in favour of it. We know the way in which these resolutions are passed. They carry no Weight with me, and I hope that they carry no weight with the House. A much better course for the hon. Gentleman to have taken would have been to present this Bill in the ordinary way. The Bill would not have got so much publicity, it is true, hut we should have had the opportunity of perusing it and of knowing what was in it, and deciding whether it should receive a Second Reading in the ordinary way. It is true that he quoted the Bill of last year, but he calls this an amending Bill. Another objection is that we have heard nothing about the penalties proposed by the Bill. The Bill may include new crime; in the
catalogue of legislation, and to do so in legislation of this sort is most objectionable. All that I can make out of the Bill is that it is a new tax on engagement and wedding rings, and, therefore, would be a discouragement to the very desirable state of matrimony. This is not a time at which we ought to bring in a Bill to discourage that sort of trade,

and I hope that the House will refuse leave to introduce this Measure.

Question put,

"That leave be given to bring hi a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts. 1887 to 1911, in their application to certain articles, dealt with in the fancy jewellery and allied trades."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes. 128.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonet Sir Joseph


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Grace, John
Neville, R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pease, William Edwin


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boyd-Carpenter. Major A.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Plelou, D. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pitcher. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newby)
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Bullock. Captain M.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Burgoyne. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burman, J. B.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Remer, J. R.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Remnant, Sir James


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, S. (York. N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Stir'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. O. (Flint)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Russell, Alexander West - (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Homan, C. W. J.
Rye, F. G


Chapman. Sir S.
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Charteris. Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hurd. Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
Savory, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jacob. A. E.
Shaw. Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Couper. J. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton. A. N.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Slaney. Major P. Kenyon


Crook, C. W.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lougher, L.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdren, South)


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Waddington, R.


Ellis, R. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elveden, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Wheler Major Granville C. H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R. Ripon)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hannon and Mr. G. Balfour.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)
Hardle, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Baker J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Snell, Harry


Bromley. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy, (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd. H. E.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughlon)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W, M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


England, Colonel A.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Forrest. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wignall, James


Gee, Captain R.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Pallin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A (Nelson end Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, F. (York. W. R. Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Wallhead


Bill read a Second time.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hannon, Sir Evelyn Cecil, Sir Francis Lowe, Sir Edward Iliffe, Commander Locker-Lampson, Mr. Burman, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Jephcott, Sir Philip Dawson, and Mr. Raine.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS (1887 TO 1911) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, in their application to certain articles dealt with in the fancy jewellery and allied trades," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Rill, not amended (in, the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next.

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (BLIND CORNERS PREVENTION) BILL,

"to prevent the view of traffic from being obstructed at the corners of roads," presented by Sir EDWARD ILIFFE; supported by Major Boyd-Carpenter, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Major Crawfurd, Sir Harry Brittain, and Mr. Hannon; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill): Mr. Trevelyan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. James Hudson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Great Western Railway [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 123, in the case of the Petition of the Railway Clerks' Association,' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to he dispensed with. on condition that the Petitioners confine their opposition to Clauses 14 and 15."

WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS CONTINUATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I find myself this afternoon, for the second time, presenting a Rent Restrictions Bill to the House of Commons. With regard to the first Bill that was passed in 1923, I must admit that I had more kicks than halfpence about it. All the same, I am not ashamed of anything in that Bill, and I think when one considers the extraordinary difficulty of the problem with which it set out to deal, it must be admitted its working has been carried on with remarkable smoothness ever since. As to the second Bill, the one which I am asking the House to approve this afternoon, it, is a much more simple affair, but, unambitious as it is, I could hardly expect that hon. Members opposite would lose so good an opportunity of telling the tenants, who are also voters, how completely they are devoted to their interests, and how much more they are prepared to do for them now they are in Opposition than they were when they were in office. And so I am not surprised to find on the Order Paper a number of what are called reasoned Amendments.
I shall say something about those Amendments before I sit down, but, perhaps, it would be convenient if I were to begin by simply stating to the House what is the reason for the present Bill, and why it is cast in this particular form. There are many hon. Members in 'he House who were not here when the previous Rent Restrictions Acts were passed, and, perhaps, therefore, I ought to say that the law which now governs the rents of controlled houses is to be found in the Act of 1920, as amended by the subsequent Act of 1923. The Act of 1920 restricts the increase in rent which the landlord is permitted to charge to 40 per cent. over the standard rent, and restricts
the interest upon mortgages to 1 per cent. over the standard rate of interest, those standards being, approximately, the levels which were in force before the War. The Act also restricts the right of the landlord to recover possession of his house, except under certain specified conditions, and it prevents foreclosure of the mortgage.
The Act of 1923 is divided into two Parts. The first Part prolongs the operation of the principal Act, with a few modifications which were based on the recommendations of the Onslow Committee. It prolonged it for a period of two years, namely, to the 24th June in this country and in Wales, and to the 28th May in Scotland. The second Part of that Act only comes into operation when the first Part expires, and it then provides for a second period of partial control of rents of houses which was to last for five years. Taking the two Parts together, there is provided in the Act of 1923 control of one kind or another lasting for a total period of seven years. I explained, when I was introducing that Bill, that my purpose was, if possible, to pass from a condition of control to a condition when the restrictions would be altogether abolished, so gradually that there would not be any great hardship inflicted upon individuals at the time when the final stages contemplated by the Bill were reached.
The present Bill is devised, in accordance with the pledge given by the Prime Minister at the General Election, to prolong the first part of the Act of 1923—that is to say, the provisions contained in the principal Act of 1920—for another 2½ years. Hon. Members who were in the House when we debated the Bill of 1923 will recollect that the opinion was expressed, in the course of our Debates then, and not in one quarter of the House only, that a period of full control lasting for two years would he insufficient, that the shortage of houses which then existed would not be remedied in so short a time as that, and that, therefore, it would be impossible to bring into operation Part II of the Bill when the first two years had expired. If anyone cares to look up the speech which I made on that occasion, they will find that I did not commit myself to any dogmatic expression of opinion on that point. I thought then, as I think now, that it is desirable that
all these restrictions should be done away with and completely removed at the earliest possible moment, if that can be done without exposing the tenants to undue exploitation by unscrupulous landlords; but I thought then, as I think now, that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to prophesy with certainty when the moment will come at which that operation can safely be carried out. Therefore, I felt that the only practicable method of procedure was to go by short steps, because otherwise we should find ourselves in danger of carrying on these restrictions long after the necessity for them had passed away.
If hon. Members agree with the view I have expressed, namely, that these restrictions are undesirable in themselves and should not be preserved any longer than is absolutely necessary, then I think they will agree with me that that is the wisest course to adopt. Indeed, that is my policy to-day. When I read in the official Amendment that the Bill
takes no cognisance of the length of time necessary to overcome the housing shortage,
I say that there are no data available for estimating that length of time, and I go on to say that, while I hope that at the. end of the 2½ years contemplated in this Bill the housing conditions will have been so much mitigated that it will be possible to start upon the second five-year period of partial control, yet, if that be not so, this Bill is so drafted that it can be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the situation can then be reviewed from year to year, without the necessity of any fresh special legislation. I claim that the method adopted in the original Act, and followed in this Bill, of proceeding by short periods at a time, is far more practical and more business-like than if we were to take an arbitrary period of 10, 15 or 20 years, which would project us so far into the future, and into conditions at which no man can really guess to-day.
As to the form which is taken by the present Bill, it will be seen that it is strictly limited—that it is, in fact, confined to a mere prolongation of the existing Act, without attempting in any respect or in any detail to alter or modify its provisions. That is a course which has not found favour on the benches opposite, and there are in the Amendments on the. Paper a number of suggestions for modification which in the opinion of hon.
Members ought now to be made in the. Rent Restrictions Act. So far as the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is concerned, which suggests that there should be incorporated in the Bill provisions for prohibiting the demolition of houses or their conversion to other purposes, and for the compulsory hiring of empty houses by local authorities, I would venture to put it to the hon. Member that provisions of that kind really have no place in a Rent Restrictions Bill. If, indeed, they were good suggestions in themselves, they might, I think, properly find a place in a Housing Bill—

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Then-why is the right hon. Gentleman blocking the Bill which has that for its object?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a different point. I was saying that if they were justified on their merits they might properly find a place in a Housing Bill, but I was going on to point out to the hon. Member why I did not think they were justified on their merits. I think the probability is that they would do more harm than good. If it really be a fact that some houses have been converted from their original purpose to be turned into offices, or garages, or clubs, there can be only a very small number of them, and I would venture to prophesy that, in the greater number of cases, those houses would not be found to be working-class houses at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] I say the greater number of them would not be found to be working-class houses at all, because working-class houses are covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts, and I do not think there can be any cases where houses which are in the occupation of working people have been converted to other purposes, because that is exactly what the Rent Restrictions Act makes it impossible for people to do.
I know, myself, of many cases where manufacturers have bought small house property in the immediate neighbourhood of their works with a view to extension, and what has happened? They have been unable to get the tenants out, and, therefore, have been unable to make the extensions they contemplated, or to give the additional employment which might have been provided by those extensions.
And, worse than that, knowing, as they do know, that in all probability they would convert those houses to the purpose for which they had bought them as soon as the Rent Restrictions Act expires, they have not been very anxious to spend a lot of money in putting those houses into better condition than they are in. In that way, I am afraid that the restrictions of the Act have certainly not benefited people living in houses of that character. Indeed, I know of one case, at any rate—there may be more—in which housing trusts have been prevented from erecting, on the site of now existing working-class houses. houses which would have given accommodation for more people than are now occupying the property in question. They, again, have not been able to carry out their operations on account of the Rent Restrictions Act. These are anomalies which are bound to occur when you introduce artificial conditions of this kind into your organisation, and to my mind they are merely a further reason for the abolition of those restrictions as soon as we can safely carry that out.
As for the suggestion that local authorities should hire empty houses by compulsion, I am bound to say that I see no evidence for the need of any such provision. Of course, at any one moment, there is always a number of houses which are empty as tenants change from house to house, but that does not mean that. they remain empty for long periods, and I would remind the hon. Member that local authorities have now the power of purchasing these houses, in which case, of course, they could let them and use them for the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind. I will ask the House to consider another aspect of this proposal. What is likely to he the effect on new building? There is quite a lot of new building going on now under this sort of arrangement: The builder gets a site, he borrows the money to enable him to erect houses on the site, which he develops, and he then proposes to sell the houses, as they are built, to intending occupiers. Is he likely to go on with a scheme of that character if he knows that, should he fail to sell his houses for three months after they have been completed, the local authority can come in and compulsorily take them from him in order to hire
them? Of course, he could not even get his finance if such a provision as that were in the Bill. That is why, although I fully recognise the purpose which the bon. Member has in mind, and the desirability of making the best use of all the accommodation in the country, I do not think the proposals which he has put forward are really calculated to advance that end.
Now let me turn to the official Amendment. The first suggestion in that Amendment is what amounts to a suggestion that Section 2 of the Act of 1923 should be repealed, Section 2 being the Section which provides that, where the landlord comes into possession of his house, that house shall come out of control. The Amendment speaks of this provision as one under which, in an increasing number of cases, the protection of the tenant is withdrawn. That is not an accurate statement of the provision in question. It cannot come into operation unless the, landlord comes into possession of his house. if the landlord comes into possession of his house there is no tenant, and, therefore, there can be no one from whom protection is withdrawn. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) smiling at this, but I am making a very serious statement and I say that to my mind there is a very great difference between the case of the sitting tenant who might be at. the mercy of a landlord who told him that either he must pay a very much higher rent or get out of the house, and the case of the man who voluntarily comes to the owner of the house and makes the best arrangement he can.
I admit at once that there have been brought to my attention certain cases where the operation of this Section has been abused, either by the demanding of an exorbitant rent or by asking premiums or key money. I was so much concerned at the information which came to me about one or two cases of that kind, that I thought desirable to make careful inquiries generally throughout the country, to see whether the abuse of which I had heard was confined to a few cases, or whether it was in any way widespread or general. I have made inquiries in about a dozen large towns throughout the country, and I have obtained information from responsible persons, from town clerks, health officers,
overseers, registrars of county courts and secretaries of Councils of Social Service, and I have got a great deal of information about what has actually taken place in the case of these decontrolled houses. Of course, the evidence in some towns, certainly in four of the towns in which I made inquiries, indicates that there appear to be no complaints at all. In places there undoubtedly have been some bad eases, but the general result of the inquiries I have made has been to bring me to the conclusion that the evil of which I am speaking is not general, is not widespread, red has not given rise to any particular agitation among the tenants generally, and that on the whole it is tending rather to decrease than to increase.
I think that that is due a good deal to the efforts of the better class of landlords and property owners to bring their weaker brethren to a better sense of their moral duty, and also to some sense of the injury which conduct of this kind is likely to do to the whole class. I find, for instance, that the President of the National Federation of Property Owners, speaking et their annual meeting on the 23rd January last, said:
I would, however, offer a word of warning to owners generally against taking undue advantage in the event of decontrol happening to any of their houses under the existing Act. There is nothing which can so hinder general decontrol as making unreasonable demands for higher rents as soon as ever the possibility offers. Personally, I do not believe that decontrol, if it came to-morrow, would lea?. to general large increases of rent. Owners would have regard, as they always have had, to ability to pay, and, as builders in the pass have erected houses to let at rents within the means of prospective tenants, so would they build to-day,
I want, if I may, just to remind the House of what was the original purpose of this provision. It was based upon one of the recommendations of the Onslow Committee, and it was designed to check, and if possible put a stop to, a practice which had been very much criticised by hon. Members opposite, namely, the practice of landlords, when they came into possession of their houses, not to let. them but to try to sell them. They found that, in order to sell them, it was necessary that they should give vacant possession, and, therefore, they would not let until they were able to sell; and the result was that you had throughout the
country considerable numbers of houses standing empty. If those houses were allowed to come out of control, it would take away from the landlord that temptation to hold up his house in the hope of effecting a sale with vacant possession. He can let it for a short time if he chooses, and then he can sell it when he gets an offer. I have some evidence to show that that, in fact, has been the actual result of the working of this Section. I have here, for instance, a letter which was written to the. "Times" in February of last year by a surveyor, who says:
It is puzzling to those who own property, and to these, like myself, whose business it is to manage town and country estates, to understand why the partial decontrol now allowed should be singled out for abolition, for it is an undoubted fact that this Section of the Act of 1923 has been instrumental in bringing a large number of houses into the market to be let.
Here, again, is another letter written in March by a lady:
Whatever may be said about rent restriction, it is earnestly to be hoped that the concession to justice and common sense by which an owner is permitted to resume possession of his property on the death or voluntary departure of a tenant may be continued. This concession, made last year, has had a wholly beneficial effect. Hundreds of cottages all over the country have at last been put into thorough repair, and in many cases improved and enlarged after years of compulsory decay.
She goes on to give a case of her own, where she has been able, owing to this provision, to improve a cottage and make it into two dwellings, which could be occupied by two families. I hope I have shown the House that, whatever may he the hardships which have undoubtedly been suffered by certain individuals in consequence of the abuse of this provision by landlords, nevertheless, it is a question of the balance of advantages, and there is, at any rate, a good deal to he said in favour of the provision, and in favour of continuing it under the present Bill.
Two other points are raised by the Amendment of the Opposition. One of them concerns the simplication of existing legislation in order to reduce litigation, and the other deals with the question of rent. I shall be very much interested to hear what the Labour party mean by the simplification of legislation in order to reduce legislation. Does it mean a Consolidation Bill? If that is all that it means I do not say it would not be
possible to consolidate the existing Rent Acts if it were thought to be desirable to take up such time of the House as would be necessary in order to consolidate Bills which are themselves only of a temporary character. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means that he could express in better language the provisions of the existing Rent Acts. If that be his idea, even if at starting there was a certain amount of doubt about the meaning of certain of these provisions, those doubts must have been pretty well removed by now because every one of them has been raised in the Courts and decided by case made law, and if you are now going to replace the words which have come to be decided in one particular sense by a set of fresh words, however well chosen by the right hon. Gentleman, the only result will he to introduce a fresh crop of litigation in order that a construction may be put in the Courts upon the fresh words that are used. The fact is that there is always a lot of talk by lazy people about the difficulty of understanding Acts of Parliament, but the real fact is that they do not want to take the trouble to apply their minds to what the Acts mean, and the fault is quite as frequently with them as with the draftsmen.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does that apply to the magistrates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member may apply it to whom he likes.
Now I come to a question with regard to rent increase, which, in the words of the Amendment, is no longer justified by the circumstances of the Bill. I notice that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) has put his name to this Amendment, and I do him the justice to say that that has been his attitude about the permitted increase of rent from the earliest days. I remember when the 1923 Act was being debated he was one who protested vigorously against the 40 per cent. which was then permitted, and, indeed, I think there has only been one occasion when the voice of that great champion of the tenants was silent, and that was when his own party brought in a Rent Restrictions Bill, in which there was no mention of any alteration in rents. But I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Shettleston and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) should have put their names to it, because I should like to ask them why what was right in 1924 is wrong in 1925. If an increase of rent is not justified today, why was it justified last year? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember his own action when he was dealing with the local authorities and negotiating for his 1924 Housing Bill. As I am informed, the local authorities at that time told him that the amount of allowance given them for repairs and maintenance was insufficient and that he was so much impressed by their argument that instead of reducing the allowance he increased it by 5 per cent.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman. To what deputation or conference does he refer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am referring to the negotiations the right hon. Gentleman carried on in connection with the Housing Bill of last year.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman. The question of repairs did not arise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not press the point.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I cannot remember it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I have been misinformed, but that was the information I got. At any rate, the right bon. Gentleman will admit that he did not press the local authorities for a reduction in the allowance for maintenance and repairs, and I suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if it is fair and right that local authorities should continue to have the same allowance made in their case for repairs, there is no reason why you should mete out different treatment to private landlords merely because they are private landlords.

Mr. MACKINDER: If they do the repairs, but they do not do them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is another point which the hon. Member knows perfectly well was dealt with in the Act of 1923. We know that if the landlord will not carry out the repairs, the tenant can
go to the local authority and get a certificate to that effect, and he does not have to pay the increase of rent [interruption.] He does in my part of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Birmingham!"] I suggest that the hon. Member should follow the good example. It is very difficult to name the exact proportion which should be permitted to landlords to increase their rent in order to cover the actual cost of repairs. The cost varies in different parts of the country.
But I do not want to rest my case merely on a justification of the present system. I think we have to take much wider ground than that in considering whether this or any other Amendment should really be introduced into the existing Act at all. If we once begin to tinker with this legislation again, it would be very difficult to stop. I do not pretend for a moment that the Act is perfect as it stands. I do not contend that there are not cases of injustice and hardship, and not only on one side, under the Act. It is a curious fact, which seems to have escaped the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the worst injustices to-day are those which are being perpetrated by profiteering tenants at the expense of subtenants, a thing which is not touched in their Amendment at all. I have many letters on these matters. I have here one from a man who writes that he is married and has a wife and three children living in two rooms with a small scullery. He gives some account of his service during the War, beginning 18th March, 1915, and ending 28th March, 1919. He served in France, Salonika, Palestine, and in France again. He says:
On 18th October, 1922, I bought a house with the hell) of a building society, burdening myself with a fifteen years' mortgage. I informed the tenant verbally that I wished possession and asked him if he saw a suitable place would he take it, which he agreed to do In September, 1924, two years afterwards, I saw a solicitor to see what steps I could take with regard to getting possession. He told me that if I had started proceedings when T first bought the house I could have obtained an order for possession, but now he is very doubtful because of the last Act that was passed.
That is the Act of last year.
In any case now I should have to provide equivalent accommodation. Being only a working man, I could not ask the solicitor to take this to Court. On 14th October I served a notice to raise the pre-war rent,
which he had been paying when I took the house over and not wanting to be harsh to him I let stand, to the legal standard as allowed by the Act. I only did this as I wanted to keep the house in fair repair when I got it for my own use. It has taken me from then to now to get any increase, as they took up the attitude that as the rent was not raised as soon as the Act was passed it could not be raised now. It meant engaging a solicitor and going before the Registrar of the County Court. Surely it is not right that any man who served his country during the four best years of his life and left the Army physically inferior in health, and who was also a volunteer for active service before there was any talk of the Derby scheme—surely the Rent Act is not meant to deprive him of his own like this.
I get a lot of letters like that, and I only quote it to show that the grievance is not all on one side. I do not think it possible to have legislation of this kind without making a great many hard cases. But if the Act was going to be amended at all, you would have to consider the case of all these people, and you would have to consider the case of mortgagees who, in many cases, not being able to foreclose the mortgage, cannot wind up the estates of deceased persons. But what I had to take into my consideration was what was going to be the effect upon the building of new houses, the only real remedy for this hardship, and the effect upon prospective builders and investors in property if we were going to rip up the whole of the settlement at which we had arrived, if we were going to spend weeks on argument and controversy upstairs about new provisions, throwing the whole country into doubt and uncertainty again. I came to the conclusion after very careful and long study that in the general interest the disadvantages of such a proceeding would far outweigh the advantages which might be received by particular individuals, and that the wisest course that this House could take would be a simple prolongation of the old Act as it stands.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, he took exception to the assertion from this side that houses were being transformed and being made suitable for shops and places of business. That is the situation in Dundee, and representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman from the Dundee Town Council urging him to introduce legislation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is hardly in Order.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, whilst purporting to continue for a limited period the protection of tenants of dwelling houses, does not amend the Law under which in an increasing number of cases this protection is withdrawn, continues legal sanction for increases in rent no longer justifiable, contains no provisions for simplifying existing legislation in order to reduce litigation, takes no cognisance of the length of time necessary to overcome the housing shortage, and is wholly inadequate to deal with the present situation
I question very much whether even the warmest supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, even after listening to his apology, can congratulate him on the Measure he has just presented to the House. Anyone who reflects for even a very few moments on the original justification for rent restriction legislation will see through the hollowness of the case to which we have just listened. The original justification for legislation of this kind was the shortage of alternative accommodation and the feeling that the tenants of the country could not rely on the honesty of speculators and property owners to refrain from taking advantage of that shortage in houses. I think the case the right hon. Gentleman should have attempted to make was that there was less need for control to-day than there was when the present legislation was put on the Statute Book. He has access to all the existing information in the country and he. might have presented some data showing that the condition of housing in 1925 is a little better than it was in 1920, or even in 1923. We might at least have expected from him some attempt to justify the selection of the year 1927 as the one at which control should cease. He might have provided us with some optimistic forecast which would have encouraged us to believe that two years hence there would not be the same need for control. If he revealed all the facts that are within his knowledge, he would boldly tell the House that the shortage would probably be greater in 1927 than it is in 1925 and that in all likelihood there would be more need for control in 1927 than there is at the present moment. I think he is perfectly right when he tells us that the whole question turns on the
provision of houses for the class of people whom we try to protect by this restrictive legislation. He is aware that, instead of the difficulties disappearing or being minimised, they are increasing almost day by day.
He knows that within the past fortnight one of the greatest difficulties towards solving this problem has been put in his way by the bankers of the City of London. He knows, as probably no one else in the House knows, that the raising of the Bank rate by 1 per cent. means an addition of something in the neighbourhood of £3 per annum to the annual rents of the small dwelling-houses which it is his business to provide, and that in fact by that stroke of the pen the financiers of the country have put a burden on new houses equal approximately to what would be placed on them if all the workers in the building industry had been granted a 50 per cent. increase in wages. So far as I know—and I regret that it is so—the right hon. Gentleman has not raised a single word of protest against this outrageous attack on one of the principal industries of the country. May I ask the House to imagine the howl that would have gone up from the quarter represented by the right hon. Gentleman if the building trade had demanded, and succeeded in obtaining, a 50 per cent. increase in wages? Should we not have had the troubles and tribulations of the poor painted to us in colours which could not be equalled by the most eloquent speakers on this side of the House? But when a difficulty is created by the financial classes at the expense of the very poorest of the poor, the right hon. Gentleman, with all his enthusiasm for housing and with all his consideration for the oppressed, has not a single word of protest to utter against the action of the people who benefit by this public robbery.
5.0 P.M.
Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has selected 1927 in his Bill? It is not because he has the slightest hope that in 1927 the shortage of housing accommodation, which is the justification for restrictive legislation, will cease to exist. It is for another reason altogether. He knows that under his Act of 1923 control is bleeding to death. He knows that the control of rent is in exactly the same position as a patient who is declining and requires only a given period in which to
depart from this earthly existence. I think the Bill would have been more accurately described as a Decontrol Continuation Bill. The Act of 1923 removes from control every house that becomes vacant, with the exception of those houses of which the owners obtain possession through an action for arrears of rent. But even in that respect very little protection is given to the tenants. I know that in Scotland at any rate—I have no doubt the practice is universal—tenants who fall into arrears of rent are pursued by the owners as far as possible legally to the very point of ejection, and then they are terrorised into vacating the houses rather than actually and technically ejected from them. In that way the intention of a concession that was made under the 1923 Act is in many cases defeated. I have no doubt.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the effect of the 1923 Act in securing that certain houses, which would otherwise be held for sale, are continued for letting purposes. the owner having the privilege of increasing rents and the prospect of ejecting the tenant whenever it suits him and presumably whenever he can find a suitable purchaser. I would like to challenge the assertion made by the right hon. Gentleman. The most telling evidence I can produce is the fact that late in my period of office at the Ministry of Health I received a deputation from the local authority of Birmingham consisting of the Lord Mayor or his representative. probably the Town Clerk; at any rate, the most influential deputation that the City of Birmingham could send to the Ministry. That deputation nut to me a very strong plea for such an alteration of the 1923 Act as would enable them to deal with owners of houses which, when they became decontrolled, were withdrawn for letting purposes by the owners and held vacant for sale. They presented to me figures showing that hundreds of houses in the City of Birmingham were being held for sale and withdrawn from the category of houses to let. So that if the right hon. Gentleman wants a reply to his own case, he need only apply for it to the Town Clerk of the City that he represents.
I have no doubt that at the hack of the right hon. Gentleman's mind is a cynical feeling regarding the seriousness with which his assertions as to continuing the control of working-class houses have been
accepted. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the very class of people with whom you arc dealing here, because of their insecurity of employment and their general poverty, are the people above all others in the community who are compelled to remove periodically from their houses. He knows that in every large industrial centre in the country there Is already a very large number of houses that are decontrolled. He may say, as he did say, that no great hardship has accrued from that procedure to the tenants who have become occupiers of those houses, because a generous house-owning class have unanimously decided that as far as they can possibly do so they will restrain the evil designs of the less angelic members.
But the right hon. Gentleman is not so simple as to be taken in by a Resolution like that. He knows that the real meaning of that Resolution is: "Don't show your hands immediately. Wait until we get further decontrol. If, as the result of a the removal of a certain amount of control you increase the rents substantially to the tenants, the result will be a general agitation in favour of a general resumption of control. Wait until we get a little more. Wait until 1925 passes. If possible control yourselves voluntarily until 1927 passes, and then, the poor defenceless tenant having been handed over to us for treatment. we will, as sound business men, be able to recoup ourselves in a very few years for the display of patience which we gave to the public during the short operation of this decontrol policy." I put to the right hon. Gentleman this: If I am not correct in that assumption of what. is in their minds, where comes the need for decontrol at all? If the property owners are, as he says, people who do not want to increase rents, but people who want to keep rents at their present reasonable level, there is nothing in the present legislation to prevent them keeping rents at the present level. If they want to reduce rents there is nothing here to prevent them reducing rents. All that is in this legislation is provision to prevent them increasing rents. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to prove that they do not want to increase rents. he. prove:; at the same time that there is no need at all for the removal of rent restriction legislation. It is not merely the corporation of Birmingham
that is opposed to the legislation and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a telegram put into my hand this afternoon from the Tenants' Association, Lozells, Birmingham, and it states:
We support your Amendment to the Rent Bill. No more decontrolled houses, no more ejections without alternative accommodation.
That does not appear to be the attitude of public mind which the right hon. Gentleman in his speech attempted to convey to the House. I have in my hand another statement, which comes from the City of Sheffield. Hon. Members will remember that the right lion. Gentleman was careful to impress upon us that no undue advantage was being taken of his legislation by property owners generally. He had been to a dozen towns, and it was quite true that here and there you might find an isolated case, one black sheep among a wonderfully innocent class, who had overstepped the bounds of prudence, perhaps of honesty, and taken advantage of the tenants who were at his mercy. But while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, one of the Members for the City of Sheffield put into my hand a circular dealing with about half a down specific eases in that city alone. I wonder if this information reached the Ministry of Health as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's pursuit of the wicked when he was preparing the legislation now before the House? The circular states that
A Sheffield landlord find Justice of the Peace, who was caught overcharging rent to a Poor tenant, handed over a cheque for £S to save his name being entered into the Court.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Is that a decontrolled house?

Mr. WHEATLEY: This man is, at any rate, operating under legislation prepared by the right hon. Gentleman, passed by this House on his initiative, and maintained on the Statute Book, although within that legislation robbery of this kind is possible in the City of Sheffield. Our complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is that with this knowledge in his possession, or, at any rate, available, he allows the continuance of legislation which makes this robbery possible. The circular says further:
An estate agent who was caught overcharging a poor tenant 9d. per week,
handed over a cheque for £10 6s. 6d. and reduced the rent, to save his name being catered into the Court.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Was that a decontrolled house?

Mr. WHEATLEY: This is an uncontrolled scoundrel, who owns a house in Sheffield. My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that the people who would do this, even within legislation, will do 10 times more when you remove the legislation. The circular continues:
A Sheffield landlord had to refund a sum of £21 14s. for rater; collected from three poor tenants. A Sheffield estate agent, after distraining a poor tenant's home for £11, arrears of rent, had to return the furniture, pay £18 3s. 4d. rates for the tenant, refund £14 14s. in cash, pay costs, and give the tenant a clear rent book. A Sheffield landlord handed over the sum of £23 8s. 3½d. to four tenants for overcharging rents and rates alleged to he unpaid, after being threatened with Court proceedings. The sum of £748 13s. has been recovered from all sources For the members of this particular Association during the past 15 months.
I submit that with that statement of facts before him, with that knowledge of the disposition of the people with whom we are dealing here, it is most unfair, I might almost go the length of saying cruel, for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a policy which is destined to hand over to this class of people thousands and thousands of tenants who are protected to some extent under the existing legislation. I have had personal experience of injustices that take place under the law as it now stands, and we were twitted for not dealing with this question during 1924. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods his head. He knows quite well, because he is at the Ministry of Health, that before I left the Ministry I had taken the preliminary steps to put on the Statute Book exactly what I am proclaiming to-day in criticism of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. When I was recently in my own constituency I found that the class of people to whom our tenants are being handed over by the policy of the right hon. Gentleman could have been dealt with in exactly the same way as evidently they are dealt with in the City of Sheffield. One of my constituents, who was a qualified teacher of mathematics in a higher-grade school. showed me a rent hook which he had been asked by a poor tenant to add up
in order to ascertain how the account with the house factor stood, and he told me that, notwithstanding his high qualifications, the rent book had been prepared in such a rascally manner that he could not make head nor tail of it, and he was quite satisfied that the design was to enable the house agent to extract from the tenant money which the tenant did riot legally owe.
It is quite evident to anyone who studies the policy of the right hon. Gentleman that it is based on the principle of taking the very poorest people first. The very poorest people are those who reside in the meanest houses. They are the people who have least security in industry and they occupy the houses which are to be decontrolled earliest. These houses, when offered for letting if they are so offered, will again be occupied by members of that poorest section, and it 'e this poorest section which is being handed over first to the class of people described in the documents from which I have just quoted. Having dealt with that poorest section and disposed of them the right hon. Gentleman's policy then moves slowly but gradually up the scale and he hopes that by 1927 he will have decontrolled so many houses as to be able to go to the country and say that those whose houses are still controlled are a privileged few. He will say: "Why should you who are living in decontrolled houses, who have had your rents increased, and who have had none of the advantages of this legislation, continue to support control for a comparatively few remaining people? Those who are living in controlled houses stood quietly by and allowed your houses to be decontrolled; why should not you stand quietly by now and allow the remainder of the houses to be decontrolled?"
The right hon. Gentleman, pleading it as a reason why he did not interfere with the existing legislation, said that the Courts had had all the ambiguities of this Measure before them and had given clear definitions of the meanings of the words and he asked, "Why disturb that legislation which has been clarified by litigation and adopt some new form of words which would require a fresh crop of litigation in order to get at its exact meaning?" I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that what he said amounts to
this—that the Department for which he is responsible is not capable of drafting a Rent Restrictions Bill winch can operate without extensive litigation to determine the meaning of the words and phrases used in it. If his statement means anything else I must say the alternative meaning passes my comprehension. The right hon. Gentleman says that the public now know, the owners know, the tenants know and, presumably, the lawyers know the meaning of the Act of 1923. I wish he would address his remarks to the Secretary for Scotland, who will tell him whether or not the public, the landlords, the tenants or the lawyers there know the meaning of that Act. I wonder has he heard about the Clydebank case? Does he know that the root of the trouble in Clydebank is that the Judge in Clydebank interprets the Act in one way while the Judge in a-neighbouring county interprets it in another. This is not something which took place during that earlier and, presumably, essential period of putting the Act through the mill in order that a wondering world might understand its meaning this is the position to-day. The tenants raised actions in the Dumbarton-shire Court and contended that the Act, if interpreted as they submitted it, did not justify the increases of rent demanded by the landlords. The Judge heard the tenants' case and without any hesitation decided in their favour.
It is true that a good deal of the public trouble which has taken place is in regard to tenants who owe arrears of rent, which arc not merely arrears of the excess over the 1914 standard, but the atmosphere in Clydebank is an atmosphere created by the ambiguity of the 1923 Act. The Judge says the Act means something entirely different from what I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman contends its meaning to be and, consequently, the great majority of the tenants who are carrying on the agitation in Clydebank are actually defending the law as interpreted by the Judge in Clydebank and as put on the Statute Book by the right lion. Gentleman against the property-owners of Clydebank who are insisting on a right. which is outside the law as interpreted in their own county. For the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House, in the midst of these proceedings, and while this case is subject to consideration by a Com-
mission which he himself appointed and to tell us that the Act has been clarified and is now so clearly understood that it would be sheer waste of time on the part of the House to disturb it, is, I suggest, a position that he cannot attempt to justify, nor is it a position that the people of the country will accept.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether in the words which he has used the right hon. Gentleman is referring only to the case in Clydebank? Is that the signification of his remarks?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can seriously expect that when an Amendment of this kind is put on the Paper it should be confined to one particular case in one particular locality. Surely this Amendment was put down in order that I might draw the attention of the House and of the country to the state of affairs which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to deal with now that he is introducing fresh legislation. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded in his apology to explain why he did not interfere with the present standard of rents. I am sorry I have mislaid the notes which I made of his speech, hut I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that he attempted to prove that the standard of rent now being obtained by the owner is justified in the light of the whole of this legislation. What are the facts? When the 40 per cent. increase in rent was pot on the Statute Book in 1920, it was as the result of the recommendations of a Committee presided over, I believe, by Lord Salisbury. The Salisbury Committee recommended as a fair settlement of the claims of the owners at that date, that a 40 per cent. increase of rent should be allowed and I may say in passing that in many cases the increases were actually substantially greater than 40 per cent. In the City of Glasgow the increase amounted to 47½ per cent., and in some places in England the increases amounted to 60 per cent. or thereabouts. The Salisbury Committee said that 40 per cent. was an amount that might be reasonably granted to the landlord, and they gave reasons for it, the principal reason being the increased cost of the repair of dwelling houses. I am not going to enter into the question of whether or not the landlords have been
carrying out repairs to dwelling houses in post-War times as they did in pre-War times. My hon. Friends behind me will have a considerable amount to say on that point, but in giving their reasons the Salisbury Committee said that the cost of repairs then was 150 per cent. higher than it was in 1913, and because it was so much higher they allowed a 40 per cent. increase in rent. At the present moment the cost of repairs, instead of being 150 per cent. higher than it was in 1913, is only 80 per cent. higher than it was in 1913, and, surely, if an increase of 1.50, per cent. in the cost of repairs was necessary to justify an increase of 40 per cent. in the rent, then an 80 per cent. increase in the cost of repairs does not justify the continuance of that high standard of rent.
What the right hon. Gentleman is actually doing is to say to the people in the building industry and the workers, "You are rightly getting less wages now than you did in 1920": he is saying to the manufacturers of building materials, "You are getting less profit now than you did in 1920": and he is saying to those who live on investments in working-class houses, "The sacrifices made by the industry, by the workers and by the manufacturers are under my legislation to he gobbled up by the investors." That is the pure undiluted Tory policy, and it makes a mockery of the appeals that are put forth to the industrial section of this community—not merely to the workers but to the manufacturers—to get together and reduce the cost of production. The underlying policy is exemplified in this legislation and in the toleration of the present state of affairs by the right hon. Gentleman. and is expressed in the recent increase in the Bank rate. It is, "Let industry do with less in order that the financial class may get more. Get together you employers and employés and bring down the cost of repairs in dwelling houses to half the cost that existed in 1900 and when you have done that, we will allow the people who live by investment in that property to continue to draw from it the same amounts which they were drawing before you made this sacrifice in the national interests." I submit that this goes very far beyond rent. restriction legislation, and it is a very serious pronouncement to make, not in words, but in actual deeds, to the industrial section of this country.
There are many other points with which I would like to deal, but I have occupied the time of the House even longer than I was justified in doing, and the other objections to the existing state of legislation will, I have no doubt, be stated eloquently and forcibly by other speakers who will address the House.
My case against the right hon. Gentleman is not on the ground of what his Bill contains, but on the ground of the omissions he has made when he came to deal with this question. I have shown him that the tenants are suffering under the decontrol policy; I have shown him the character of the owners and the agents to whom the tenants are being handed over in ever-increasing numbers; I have submitted to him evidence to show that he is dealing here, I do not say in the mass, with a dishonest set of people, but, after all, is it necessary that I should prove that house owners or house agents in the mass are dishonest, to prove my plea for a law that will deal with the black sheep in their flock? Laws are not made to deal with honest people; laws arc made to deal with dishonest people. I submit that these people are allowed to pursue to-day a policy of robbery, merely because, in the General Election of 1924, they succeeded in returning a majority of Members to this House. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, that he may, by that majority, continue to oppress the people of this country with this kind of legislation, he may press this Measure through this House with that majority, but he will not prevent us from exposing to the British public the principles of his Measure, and of the authors of that Measure.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has in this Bill fixed the limit of control at 2½ years. But he has produced no facts or figures to show that at the end of that time the position of the housing problem will be any different from what it is to-day, and I submit that the reason why we have control at all is because of the abnormal house shortage brought about by the cessation of building operations during the War. The facts to-day do not in any way justify control coming to an end in 2½ years' time. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was difficult to say when that period would arise, and he suggested that it
would be undesirable to continue the period of control for 20 years. There is a complete difference between 20 years and 2½ years, and whereas, possibly, 20 years might be too long, 2½ years is undoubtedly far too short. Does anyone suggest that we are even making up the leeway of that big shortage which originally justified control? We were told by the Coalition Government that first dealt with the question, that there was a shortage of half a million houses after the War, and I submit that there is, in effect, that, half million shortage to-day.
In reply to a question addressed to him at the beginning of the month, the right hon. Gentleman told us that under the 1919, 1923 and 1924 Acts 270,151 houses were all that had been completed up to the present time. You have to add, to get a fair estimate of the position, the number of houses built by private enterprise without any subsidy whatever, and I think the right hon. Gentleman or his Department gave a figure not long ago which suggested that about 126,000 houses had been built in a similar time by private enterprise. Even allowing it to be 150.000, which is taking a very generous estimate, you only then get a total of 420,000 built since the Armistice. What good are 420,000 houses to fill the shortage which faces us? The half million, it is true, were not the only shortage, because we have to allow for the number of houses required each year since the Armistice to fill the ordinary wastage which takes place, and the increase of population, and I think it is an accepted fact that, prior to the. War, we required something like 80,000 to 90,000 houses a year in order to make good the demands of the increasing population and the wastage which arises from depreciation of property. If that figure is anything like correct, the 420,000 houses which is the utmost we can say have been built. since the Armistice only make good the normal demand due to the growth of population and the effluxion of time, leaving the position to-day as it was five years ago, so that there is at least a shortage of half-a-million houses facing us at the present time.
I do not think the Minister himself would suggest that under the most favourable conditions that half a million houses are likely to be made good within 22:: years, and it is, of course, utterly
impossible to imagine that such a thing should take place. The maximum production of houses which we can expect tinder the most favourable conditions is certainly not 200,000 houses a year, and if you have to allow for the increase required to make good the increase of population as well as the half million shortage, it will be five or even 10 years before we get to the normal condition. Therefore, I submit that, in view of the abnormal conditions and the appalling shortage to-day, there is no justification for saying that control shall come to an end at the end of 2½ years, or oven for raising the hope that it will.
The other Section of the Act of 1923 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, with some pride, was that allowing for the decontrol of houses which prior to 1923 were not decontrolled, if a landlord wanted them for his own use. I submit that the satisfaction which he felt with regard to the working of that Section is not shared by local authorities throughout the country. He admitted that there were certain cases of very grave hardship and I submit that those cases are more typical of the majority of cases than he seems to believe. One can only quoto from one's own district, but there I know that instead of this particular Section making for a reduction in the number of empty houses, it has, if anything, tended to increase them. The houses are held empty, not only for weeks and months, but sometimes for over a year, in order that a higher price may be obtained for selling or that a higher rent may be squeezed. Therefore, I say that this Amendment of the Section of the Act which was introduced for the first time in 1923 has caused very great hardship to a large number of tenants, and has not given us that increased accommodation which was foreshadowed as the reason.
Now may I come for a moment. to the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Bonn) and myself have put down to this Bill? I submit, with all seriousness, that in view of the appalling conditions to-day it is the height of folly not to see that use is made of every available house that exists. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that really the number of these houses that have been converted is very
few. He said that they could not be many, because most of the working-class houses were protected by the Rent Restrictions Act, but by his own Section in the 1923 Act a large number of houses passed out of control when they came into the possession of the landlords, and I submit that, taking the country throughout, there are many thousands of houses which have been converted from ordinary working-class dwellings into clubs, garages, workshops, and offices, and that the Minister will find that that will be his experience if he makes investigation. One can only speak from one's own personal knowledge, hut in the town of Middlesbrough, which I have the honour to represent, during the last two years no fewer than 30 of these houses have been converted from dwelling-houses. That may not seem a large number, but if that 30 is proportionate to the figure in other towns, I am justified in saying that many thousands of houses have been turned from their purpose of housing the working classes into other purposes of infinitely less use. Whether the number be large or small, it is no comfort or satisfaction to the individual who has been waiting for four or five years for a house and who is living in the most appalling conditions, and every one of these houses that is converted is a source of social discontent and unrest. I submit that it is not right in principle that you should allow any houses to be converted at this present time from the purpose for which they were intended and turned to other uses.
I have given before in this House illustrations of the appalling conditions of overcrowding which exist, and it seems to me that sometimes those of us who live in comfortable houses, and some who possess more, than one house, do not really visualise the horror and tragedy that are going on in all our large industrial towns through this appalling amount of overcrowding. Let me give one or two instances. There is a six-roomed house, not a slum, where no fewer than six families are living, 26 people, and in one room of that six-roomed house you have the father and the mother, two boys, aged 18 and 12, and two girls, 15 and 10, all living together, sleeping, and having their whole being in this one room. It is not a question of poverty, because they are paying 10s. 6d. a week
for the use of that one room, and to a. man living under such appalling conditions, where decency and morality are hardly possible, conditions which are a discredit to a civilised country, it is no comfort to see adjoining houses being turned from dwelling-houses into garages, clubs, and so on. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he shall reconsider this question.
This was a provision which was passed by a Government of which he was a staunch supporter in 1919. The provision of the 1919 Act allowed local authorities to veto these conversions. It is not a lard and fast rule. It does not say that under no circumstances whatever shall any house be turned into other purposes, but it gives the local authority the discretion and enables them to weigh up the situation and judge as to whether the housing needs of the district are so great that it is not right for a single house to be turned to another purpose. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view or the terrible tragedy that is going on and of the condition of overcrowding in many of our industrial towns, that he should restore to toe local authorities that power which they had to veto, if they thought fit, this conversion. There was, under this particular Section, the right to appeal to the Minister of Health if there was a case of grievance or hardship. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me the other day, in reply to a question, that in only three cases had there been any appeal whatever made to his Department, that, in two eases the appeals were withdrawn, and that there was only one solitary case taken to the Minister and in that case he found against the local authority. That shows that throughout the country the provision worked fairly and equitably, and that there was no sense of grievance, and if there had been, there is the machinery provided that the Minister himself can override a finding of the local authority and protect any particular interest, which may be aggrieved submit that not only is it desirable we should not convert any of these houses which are at present used as dwelling houses for other purposes, but also I say that we could use this large number of empty houses which are being withheld from occupation.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the numbers were very much
exaggerated. I am going only to speak from my own knowledge. I find that at, the end of last year in Middlesbrough there were 113 empty houses. Of these 109 were of the rateable value of 225 or less. It is sometimes suggested, when we are talking about this question, that these empty hones are large mansions which could not be used without a considerable expense of conversion, and that the thing does not apply to the ordinary small dwelling-house. That is not so in certain parts of the North of England. There you have in this town of 130,000 inhabitants 109 ordinary working-class houses withheld from occupation. The right hon. Gentleman may inquire how long these have been withheld. It is not possible to ascertain the exact length of time, but front inquiries I have made officially I am informed that in 20 eases these houses have been empty for from six up to 12 months, and the impression I got from the people who made the investigation was that the 113 so empty were rather a smaller number than a larger number.
I say again, that whether the number be small or large, if it is only 20 it is 20 too many, when we have, this appalling condition of overcrowding taking place. I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter, and see if it is riot possible to do something. He told us that the local authorities already had power, if they so desired, to buy these houses. That is perfectly true. But I submit that the first concern of the local authority is the provision of more houses, and that it requires to use its financial resources, which are not unlimited, for building new houses rather than for taking over existing houses. That is the reason why the power was given to Scotland. One has heard that in Scotland the Act was ineffective. I do not understand what anyone means when they say that an Act is ineffective. How do they know what is the effect of an Act of this kind'? It is not altogether the question of the number of houses which the local authority takes over, but rather the deterrent effect that powers of this kind have on the district.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in the Coalition Government, in introducing a Bill which was to give similar powers to the local authority in England to those given in Scotland said that in one Lancashire town there were,
I think, 170 empty houses. As soon as the Bill was introduced the chairman of the local authority called the landlords together and said, "Here are certain powers foreshadowed in a Government Bill." Within a fortnight 120 of those houses had been let, leaving 50. I submit that the value of an Act of this sort is not the number of convictions that take place under it, but the deterrent effect which it has upon those who are withholding houses from occupation. It would not be sensible to say that the law against murder was ineffective because there was not a certain number of executions each year! Powers of this kind have a deterrent effect upon the owners in the districts. I submit what is effective in Scotland will be equally effective in England. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give the local authorities that power to take over empty houses that have been standing three months in the midst of a terrible condition of overcrowding, may I remind him that the reason why so many of these houses stand empty is because the owners of empty property are exempted from rates. The property owner says: "It does not cost me anything to keep this house empty, I may get a higher price for it by waiting three or six months, either to sell or to let it." If on the other hand, the Minister turns this suggestion round in his own mind and brings in a Bill to allow the local authorities to rate these empty houses for the period they are empty he would take away the inducement to the property owners to keep their houses empty and give them an incentive to let them. Something must be done. It is intolerable that in these industrial areas you should have these houses which are being kept empty in order that the owners may make a profit out of the extremities and needs of those who ought to occupy them.
A man came to me only the other day. an ex-service man. He and his wife have to live in one room together with three children, boys and girls, 12 years of age up to 18 years. He applied for a house in 1920. He is on the selected waiting list. It is five years since that man was demobilised. He is in good work, as are thousands of others who are in like plight. It is not a question of poverty in this and other cases. The houses are not there
for them to occupy. We have a waiting list of 3,000 who had their names down for three or four years, and, referring to Middlesbrough, many of these are ex-service men. They did good service during the War. I submit that this condition of affairs is an annoyance and a cause of social unrest to these men and their wives. They see that these houses which are suitable for them to occupy are empty, but they are not allowed to have them. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question and to see whether he cannot make some use of existing houses. Do not be afraid of treading on the corns of vested interests. Consider rather the clamant needs of those who by the refusal of these houses are turned almost to despair. There is no more fruitful cause of social unrest and upheaval in our midst than this shortage of houses. If the Minister can see his way either to embody in this Bill, or to allow the other Bill to which I have referred to go upstairs, it would be well. At any rate, it would add something to the housing facilities which are in existence and which are being withheld owing to the greed of landlords, and the delay and hesitation of the Ministry to take serious action.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) I have been wondering what some of his constituents may think when they read it. I can imagine some of them, with their childlike faith in their Member, not knowing quite so much as some of us here, thinking that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is growing a, forked tail, outstanding ears, and is likely to go forth with a red cap on his head! Apparently, he has been guilty, in conspiracy with the property owners in this country, to raise the bank rate in order to prevent the building of houses! It has been suggested that, following on this, he has done his very best to assist the wicked class of landlords under a specious so-called scheme, to bring about some worse decontrol in the general state of affairs by which the wicked landlords' class would get more out of their tenants than ever before.
When, however, we come to think of it, to some of us, the picture of the right hon. Gentleman in producing this Bill is not
that which I have suggested, but rather that of an angel, the only spot upon the whiteness of whose robes is that he Las not seen fit to repeal the Act of 1923 and to bring in a Socialist Measure in its place! Might hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite know perfectly well that they have no case whatever against this Bill; therefore, they are putting up the opposition they are, and all they can do is to tell us they regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not brought in legislation of a different kind. This Bill, everybody knows, is in accordance with the demand made at the time of the last General Election and the pledge given to continue for a certain time such a Measure of rent restriction as is absolutely necessary. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was a little less than fair when he complained that the Minister of Health had fixed the year 1927 as the one when all control should cease, though my right hon. Friend was careful to explain to the House that the Bill is drawn in such a form that it can he continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, from year to year as long as it; may be considered necessary.
6.0 P.M.
But I did not get up with the intention of praising the Bill of my right hon. Friend. So far as it concerns the prolongation of the rent restriction provision it speaks for itself. No one in this House will venture seriously to quarrel with or oppose that part. I rose to criticise it in one respect, and that is in regard to the continuance of the restrictions on mortgages. This is a question which has been brought up on previous Bills, and anyone who has any experience in regard to either borrowing money on mortagage or lending it on mortgages, which come within this Bill—or rather I should say within the previous Acts—knows perfectly well that there is no reason whatever for continuing that restriction which has nothing whatever to do with the tenants of houses. The removal of this restriction on mortgages will not affect a single tenant in the country. He is protected by the rent restriction part of it. The reason for the restriction with regard to mortgages when this legislation was first introduced must be now gone. Everyone who has security of this kind, property of this kind on which he has raised money by
means of mortgage, can perfectly well, if his security is good enough—and if not he ought not to he helped by legislation—if the property is worth the money and the security is good enough—can get money from some of the other sources and by the ordinary means without the slightest trouble whatever and at a reasonable market rate of interest. The reason why he does not do so, but prefers to take advantage of this legislation, is very human. He does now see why he should go to the trouble to find money from another source when he, is not obliged to do so. He does not see why he should bear the cost, though it is small in relation to the whole proposition, that he would be put to in getting the money elsewhere. I venture to suggest, and hope that, my hon. Friend now on the Front Bench will represent this very strongly to the Minister, because I am certain he does not dispute the truth of the proposition, that the Minister should do his best in Committee upstairs to see that the Bill is so altered as to except mortgages from this particular restriction.
As every solicitor with any extensive practice knows, there are at the present time an enormous number of estates if deceased persons which ought to have been wound up years ago, and the money distributed, which cannot be wound up owing to the fact that some part of the estate is invested in mortgages of this kind, which cannot be called in. The money is tied up and cannot be distributed, and lawyers' interference goes on, not to the general benefit of those concerned. If this restriction were removed, the estate could be wound up and the money divided amongst those entitled to it, and the only hardship caused to anybody would be that the borrower of the money would have to go to the trouble and the trifling expense of finding money elsewhere in the market in the ordinary way.
May I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches to support this point of view? Who are the class, or the classes, who are affected by this restriction of mortgages? I have already pointed out that the tenants of these houses, about whom the whole discussion has hitherto gone on, are not affected at all by this question. The people affected are those
who have lent money, or who are entitled to money which has been lent on mortgage. They are very largely what one might call "small capitalists," people who have saved a certain amount of money and have invested it in what they consider a safe security of a non-speculative kind. They are also the relations of people who have saved that money and are now dead, and they are entitled to the money, but cannot get it for the moment owing to the restrictions.
Without attaching too much force to. or believing too much in, the lurid pictures drawn by hon. Members opposite as to the landlord class, may I point out that if anybody is going to suffer by the removal of these restrictions, is going to suffer by being put to the trouble of finding money elsewhere, it is the particular class of landlord whom the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite Front Bench has had so little pity for to-day? Landlords with mortgages on their property can get money elsewhere, but by the restriction which prevents mortgages being called in a number of small people are being hampered and hindered, and are having a considerable injustice done to them, and no ground can be made out for reasons either of equity, justice, or of protection against general hardship, for the retention any longer of this restriction on mortgages.
The 1923 Act made certain provisions to prevent hardship in what might happen under that Act in the year 1925 when general control conies to an end. If the Minister does not see his way to abolish altogether the restriction on mortgages. I hope he will allow that Section of the Act of 1923 to come into operation this year, and will, with that slight amount of control on mortgages, allow mortgages to be decontrolled. The Section to which T refer is Section 14 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, which gives the County Court the right to restrain the calling in of a mortgage in any cases where special hardship would result. I sincerely hope that when the Bill goes to Committee the Minister of Health and the Government may see their way either to free mortgages altogether, or at the very least to bring into operation Section 14 of the 1923 Act and otherwise relieve mortgages from this restrictive legislation:

Mr. P. HARRIS: I am surprised that there is no particular interest among the various sections in the House in this very important subject. No matter more concerns the general public than the continuation, alteration, or amendment of rent restriction. Hardly a working-class home is unaffected, and thee has been undoubtedly a very gem-rat desire for an improvement in the legislation in the light of experience. From whatever angle this subject is approached, nobody is satisfied with the present position. I support the view of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that two and a half years is far too short a term for which to extend talc existing legislation. Put i do not take the view, which the late Minister of Health took in his very strong speech, that the right hen. Gentleman the present Minister of Health is a wicked, evil person, fighting for the interests of landlords. On the contrary, I believe if there be one subject about which he is really in earnest, it is the housing question, and I am satisfied that he is anxious to get some remedy for the present appalling evils.
I do not think he or his Under-Secretary would for a moment suggest that in two, three, four, five or six, or even seven years, there is going to be any substantial improvement which would justify taking off rent control. Would it not he wiser and more satisfactory to face the facts boldly, and say "Here is a very unsatisfactory position; here is a house famine in the land; here is such a state of affairs that it is necessary to take exceptional measures," and then to devise such legislation as we could justify as permanent, or to be kept on the Statute Book for a reasonable number of years? It is unfair to all parties concerned to renew this legislation every two or three years. It is unsatisfactory to the landlords, and the mortgagees referred to by the last speaker, not to have this matter settled for a reasonable period. Uncertainty is no good to anybody and it is certainly bad for the tenant. Every two years we have nervousness among tenants, rumours are in the air that the security provided by the present legislation is to be removed, our letter bags ate filled, newspapers make alarmist statements, and unrest is caused. Surely it is wiser to make our legislation of such a character that we can justify keeping it
on the Statute Book for a reasonable period.
As far as my own experience goes, and T think it is the experience of every Member, there is not the slightest improvement in housing conditions as compared with 1920. On the contrary, through the growth of local populations, it seems to be accentuated, and the fact that there does not seem an immediate prospect of improvement makes people feel the distress all the more. A few years ago we could buoy up overcrowded tenants with the prospect that houses would be forthcoming. Great schemes were in view, local authorities were very active, Acts of Parliament were on the Statute Book providing for houses to be built. Two or three years ago overcrowded tenants took the trouble to register their names for new houses, but many of them have ceased to do that now because the waiting-lists at the headquarters of municipalities have been closed in nearly every case. At the County Hall, on the other side of Westminster Bridge, they long ago closed their application list for houses on the County Council estates. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be wiser to ask the House for a period of live to six years, so that we could feel there was some sort of permanence about the present legislation.
My own feeling is that the 40 per cent. in the original Act is too much. That advance of 40 per cent. was to meet the increased cost of repairs, and there was an idea that tenants would take advantage of the provisions of the Act and either get repairs done themselves through the local authorities, or by other means, or else make deductions from their rent for the repairs that had not been done. My experience throughout the East End of London is that very little repair work is being done. The ordinary working-man does not seem to have the initiative to take advantage of the provisions in the Act. There are streets and streets of old houses, many of them 60, 70, or 80 years old, to which very little except nominal repairs have been done. Much of this property is worn out.
It is no exaggeration to say that in East London and South London 25 per cent. of the old working-class dwellings ought to be pulled down
or reconstructed. They were built 60 years ago, at a time when there was no Building Act, and when there had been very little development of municipal government. Most of the houses had no damp course, many of them had no water supply even, and landlords, with the best will in the world, cannot make them satisfactory habitations. In the normal course of events, if we had had no war, and no building slump, most of those houses would have been pulled down or turned to other purposes. Owing; to the abnormal condition of affairs, these houses have to be tolerated. I could take the Under-Secretary through places all over London which, if the sanitary authority was in a position to do its duty, ought to be condemned, but they recognise that the people have to live somewhere, and if they were pulled down there is nowhere else for them to go. The repairs are not being done, because the sanitary authorities take up the position that these buildings are not really worth improving.
I have a site in view, a mean: they not a mile from the City of London, where there is a court with five houses and no water supply except one old-fashioned out-of-date pump, and this has to supply the water for cooking, washing, and every purpose. Those houses should be pulled down or repaired, but, as a matter of fact, the cost of repairs would come to more than the houses were worth, and so no action is taken. It would be much better to reduce the 40 per cent. increase in the rent to 20 per cent., and give the tenants the right to do the repairs, which are not being done. The 40 per cent. is going almost entirely into the pockets of the landlords.
We have hail a sorry picture drawn of landlords being controlled while other industries are allowed to charge what they like for the articles they sell. May I point out that the landlords throughout the country are in an exceptional position? They enjoy a monopoly, and run no risk, except in Glasgow, with regard to their rent, because in the South, at any rate, the tenants make the rent a first charge, and the loss for nonpayment of rents is infinitesimal. Therefore, landlords, owing to the shortage of the supply of houses, have a secure investment unlike any other industry in
the country. Not for a day will a room in any working-class district that is offered to be let remain vacant. I have letters almost every day from tenants who find themselves living with five or six children in one room anxious to find other alternative accommodation, and it cannot be found because it does not exist. The landlord has absolute security, and he can always find willing tenants ready and able to take his property and pay the rent.
I was rather surprised to hear the Minister of Health refer to a suggestion that was made with regard to the conversion of houses into workshops and factories. That has been going on in London on an extensive scale in spite of Acts of Parliament, because those Acts are being evaded. Acts of Parliament can be skilfully got round by ingenious people who desire to evade their provisions. In the last Parliament at the last moment in another place, an Amendment was inserted enabling the landlord to get possession, if he required the house not only for his own occupation, but for his son or his daughter. It is curious to find how ingenious some people are when they want to do a wrong thing. A common practice is for the landlord to get possession by putting his son or daughter in possession of one bedroom in order to obtain possession of the house. Once they get possession, the rest of the house is turned into a factory or small workshop. That practice has been going on upon a large scale and it is seriously diminishing the amount of accommodation available. The justification for that action is that in 1920 the provision in reference to rent restrictions as applied to factories and workshops was withdrawn.
The result has been that the rents of factories and workshops have been going up by leaps and bounds. In order to get cheap workshops or factories, landlords are taking advantage of this apparently innocent and well-intended provision which was put into the Act in another place. to get possession of dwelling houses in order to turn them into factories or workshops. For that reason, I think something might be done to prevent the decrease in the number of houses because of the demand for workshops and factories. Undoubtedly a number of large empty houses do exist. My own feeling
is that the most practical way of dealing with them is to make empty houses subject to rates, and that would have a very quickening and simple effect. If empty-houses were subject to rates, property owners would not be likely to hold them up indefinitely in order to try and force people to buy them, instead of allowing people to rent them.
I suggest that now you have a Rating Bill on the stocks, it would not be an unwise thing, and it would certainly be very popular, to so alter our rating system that house property which has been vacant for more than a certain period should be subject, at any rate, to half rates, if not full rates. The London County Council, who are not a very progressive body in its ideas, have passed resolutions in favour of such a principle. I would suggest to the Under-Secretary, who at one time was a distinguished member of the London County Council, that he might take a leaf out of their hook, and advise the Minister of Health to introduce legislation of that character. t think it is unfortunate that the Government, with its big majority, should not have taken an opportunity before now to bring in a more comprehensive Measure dealing with a longer period than is dealt with by this particular Bill, which is a half-hearted Measure, and leaves the law very much as it is now and avoids every difficult question. I am afraid this Measure will leave the problem of housing an open sore because of its uncertainty, and it does not shoo that a Government with a big majority. Has necessarily much courage or imagination.

Mr. DENNISON: I wish to draw particular attention to the appalling shortage of houses in the City of Birmingham, and also to the action taken by the city council with a view to arousing the interest and enthusiasm of Parliament on this question. Over 17,000 people in the City of Birmingham have made applications for houses, with the result that the list has been closed for some time past. Quite recently, although we have in Birmingham a well-known Conservative city council, representing a city which boasts of having four Memo hers in the Cabinet, passing the following resolution:
That in view of the appalling conditions arising from the acute housing shortage in
the city, and the fact that legislation is needed to enable the Corporation to exercise any control or power over houses, the General Purposes Committee be and hereby are instructed to give immediate consideration to the position with the object of the Corporation obtaining legislative powers to take possession of and adapt for small families all vacant houses remaining untenanted for a period of one month.
That is a resolution passed by the City Council of Birmingham, a city which boasts that out of 11 Members of Parliament four have seats in the Cabinet. A great majority of the members of that council are active members of the same party which is responsible for the introduction of this Bill this afternoon. I am asking, in view of the resolution which has been passed unanimously by the Birmingham City Council, and because of the shortage of working-class housing accommodation, that some provision should be in inserted in this Bill that will permit the City Council of Birmingham and other centres to be able to take over the empty houses in their particular areas. The latest figures tabulated by the Town Clerk of the City of Birmingham show that there arc over 960 empty houses in the City of Birmingham. We know that this state of things is no more common to Birmingham than to any other industrial centre where often more than one, and sometimes three families, arc living in a single-roomed tenement. No doubt we shall he told that it is impossible to do this, that, and the other to relieve this position, but I think the, electors of the, City of Birmingham will remember the absence of provisions carrying out many of the promises made during the Election campaign by the Conservatice Members who now sit in this House. I think this shows that. the Government have entirely failed in their duty, and I trust my remarks will have some slight influence on the Minister of Health.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I have listened with interest to one or two of the speeches which have been made, including that of the late Minister of Health. The House is inclined to expect something of a high character from the right hon. Gentleman, and, as a rule, we get it. But I cannot help feeling that there is a general view in the House that the right hon. Gentleman was flogging a dead horse. It seemed to me from his Amendment and his speech that the right hon. Gentleman wanted us to go back to 1923,
and find out all those objections to the Bill of 1923 and fight them out again ad nauseam with one exception. That Bill which represented, I understand. the views of the present Opposition only asked that control should be carried on until the year 192S. At that time both branches of the Opposition suggested that two years was not a sufficient period for control to be fixed. I cannot help thinking myself that two-and-a-half years is too long. I was a little astonished when I heard the Minister of Health suggest that not only was control to he kept on for two-and-a-half years, but after that it would be a fit subject to be included in the, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If he does not mind my saying so, it appeared to me as though part of his speech was not quite in accord with the rest of his speech, in which he stated as his view, and I presume the view of the Government, that the earlier decontrol can be got rill of altogether, and the sooner economic forces can come into play, the sooner can we get a real solution of the housing question. I do not know whether he went quite so far as that, but I believe that until that is done there can be no solution of the housing question.
I was a little surprised at the temerity of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in going back to the Act of 1923, and wanting to fight over again all our battles in regard lo the general question of decontrol. One cannot help remembering what transpired during the whole of last year in regard to this question. A large portion of the time which was at the disposal of the Ministry of that day was devoted to this question started with the first Bill, which was brought in my Mr. Ben Gardner, embodying all the points to which I have referred. Not only was a great deal of Parliamentary time devoted to that Bill in this House, but there was a great deal of time spent by 60 or 70 Members in the Committee Room upstairs on that Bill, when every proposal in the Bill was subjected to a very acute and very deserving criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Obstruction!"] At any rate, the Bill failed to emerge from the Committee.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, hear!

Sir P. PILDITCH: It failed to emerge, because it had so many defects and demerits. That Bill took 13 weeks of
Parliamentary time. Then the right hon. Gentleman for Shettleston took a hand himself. He would not adopt Mr. Gardner's Bill, and he would not say what was his attitude in regard to it. He brought in his own little Bill, which was intended to provide that when a man was out of work he should remain permanently in occupation of his house at the expense of the landlord, because he was not to pay any rent. That Bill was dismissed with very little ceremony. It was defeated. Then there was a Bill which emanated from a Gentleman who has a very excellent record in housing matters, Mr. E. D. Simon. That little Bill was adopted by the Government—the Government, of course, could not produce a Bill of their own which was in any way satisfactory to the House—and it was accepted by Members of all parties, and passed.
I mention Mr. Simon's Bill for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not Members of the House when that Bill was passed. That Bill, now an Act, bears upon the question which now arises as to whether or not any defects, if there were defects, in the 1923 Act have been already cured. That Bill substituted for the Clause in the 1923 Act, which enabled the landlord to obtain possession Without showing alternative accommodation, the following prevision, that the possession of a dwelling-house, reasonably required by the landlord, excluding a landlord who became landlord by purchase after the 5th Nay, 1924, for occupation by himself or for a son or daughter over 18 years of age, should he given only
If the Court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, and including any alternative accommodation available to the landlord or tenant, that greater hardship would be caused by refusing than by granting on Order for possession.
I draw attention to that provision because it goes entirely to the root of the right. hon. Gentleman's argument, that this Bill means the death of control. The defects that were inherent in the Act of 1923 were cured by that Act, an Act to Prevent Unreasonable Ejectment, which was pass-d last year.
I wish specially to refer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill means the death of control, that decontrol has gone on to a very considerable extent and that, coupled with this
Bill, and the carrying out of the 1923 Act, it means the death of control. I do not know what the figures may be. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to tell us to what extent decontrol has taken place; but, judging from letters I have received from tenants and landlords, it has not gone very far, and it has left an enormous number of cases of hardship. Even the Clause in Mr. Simon's Bill, to which I have referred, has left a loophole for a certain number of cases which are described by people who write to me as a very great hardship to small landlords—persons who bought their houses for the purpose of occupying the houses themselves. I do not think, although I have no figures to justify no, statement, that decontrol has operated in other titan a very few cases, compared with the number of cases in which control still operates.
I understood the right hon. Member for Shettlestone to say that this proposal to maintain rents at the level provided in the Act of 1920 and the Act of 1923 is unfair to the manufacturers, because they have. put their hand to an attempt to moderate the cost of production, whereas the rents are not subject to any reduction. Has the right horn Gentleman recently made himself familiar with the facts? I wonder whether he remembers that during the period of the War, from 1915, when these Rents Acts were first brought in, and when the cost of everything had been raised from 100 per cent. to 150 per cent. above the pre-War level, including wages and materials of all kinds, the rents of the houses until 1920 were not allowed to go up to anything like 40 per cent. if my memory serves me aright, it was something less than 20 per cent. For four or five years of the War, and until 1920, the rents were kept down to something like 15 per cent. above pre-War. In the first few years of the War the rents were not allowed to go up at all, unless the landlord had spent considerable sums of money in structural alterations. After 1920 they were permitted to go up by 40 per cent., 25 per cent. in respect of repairs and 15 per cent. because of the increased cost of living, the rise in the cost of money and other things. That 40 per cent. increase is not parri passe, even now with the rise in prices and in the emoluments to every class in the community. There is no
injustice in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I do not think that there is any section of this House who would be inclined to suggest that there should be a change from the 40 per cent. permitted increase. If there is to be a change, then I say, in faireess—I am not speaking with any brief for landlords, but I am only trying to present some of the facts which bear fairly upon this case—the percentage ought to be higher.
I have tried to follow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to rating. I presume he based his remarks on the Bill brought in by the Minister of Health recently, which allows a deduction to be made in regard to rating assessment. Speaking before I have had an opportunity of seeing the right hon. Gentleman's words in print, I can only say that I do not understand his argument. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary understood it, and that we shall get; something in the nature of an answer. I think the right hon. Gentleman sneered at a speech, quoted by my right hon. Friend, of the chairman of some association of owners, who suggested to the members of his federation or association that under decontrol they should not increase their rents. The right hon. Gentleman suggested there was something unfair and unworthy underlying that. I am afraid he must be a little hit Machiavelian himself, if he finds it so easy to attribute motives to other people, when those motives do not appear on the surface. This is not the first speech of the kind from the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen the speech referred to, and it never occurred to me that behind that speech some subterranean thoughts were occurring to the gentleman who made it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it v as no part of his argument to prove that all landlords were scoundrels, and that we ought to make provision for the few who were black sheep. He practically admitted that the great body of landlords would not be inclined to increase their rents unduly if control was taken away. It would be impossible for the Minister of Health to take away control entirely at this moment. The Act of 1923, the operation of which was obstructed to some extent by the bringing in of the Bill of the late Ministry, and the Act passed last year, are in such a position just now that we shall not be
able to ascertain how far they are going to cure, or help to cure, the housing problem until those two Acts are allowed to run for a period of time. It is impossible now to say exactly when it. would be safe to do away entirely with control, but I think that the right. hon. Gentleman has been very generous in extending the period for two and a half years. I do not think myself that it is necessary to go so far as that, and I shall certainly oppose any proposal to increase it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I shall not trouble myself about the Bent Restrictions Acts of the past, because the question is what we ought to do at the present time. One can very well imagine that all those Acts have been very incomplete, and have scarcely met the case. They have never been intended to operate for any considerable period of time. The reason is that one never expects to see any Government, or at least any Government with any real power in this House, which believes in the principle of control at all. I cannot imagine the majority of Members of this House believing that landlords should be restricted in any greater degree than any other seller of products. I have never yet seen any disposition on the part of this House to control any section of the community, which was using what they call the law of supply and demand, to exact the biggest price they could get for the commodity which they have to sell. And so it has been in the case of houses. That, to my mind, explains why the Conservative Government particularly, following the Coalition Government in which the Conservatives were the predominant partners, display a great deal of sympathy with the desire of the owners of houses to increase their rent at the earliest possible moment.
What is clear is that the position with regard to the supply of houses is not improving. Big as the problem may have been in the year 1919, it is just as great now, if not greater, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) that. there does not seem to be the slightest possible chance, within anything like a reasonable time, of getting this problem solved. The Resolution which has been read, which was passed by the Birmingham Town Council, with regard to the taking over of empty houses is very significant coming from the
quarter from which it comes. They recognise the enormous problem that arises. With regard to the plea of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), that more than 40 per cent. increase should be allowed, I have not exact figures. I am simply giving what I consider to be estimates, but suppose that the number of working-class houses in the country is about 6,000,000. which I think is a fair assumption, and that the average rent is £10 per year, which I think is a reasonable figure, that would give a total rent from the 6,000,000 houses of £60,000,000 per annum. An increase of 40 per cent. on that would be round about £25,000,000. Does any hon. Member suggest that the landlords of this country have spent £25,000,000 in repairing their property during the last three years? I have considerable experience of the question of repairing property, and I have never known that landlords have kept their houses in adequate repair. There are exceptions. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titehfield) may laugh, but I am speaking in the general sense. I have not the slightest doubt that on the estates in which he may have some interest the houses are fairly well kept.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: They are very well kept.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I should expect that, but my experience extends to large industrial towns and to a very large number of villages as well, and, generally speaking, I have never known landlords who kept their houses in adequate repair. That was so even when houses were easier to get than they are at present. Very few landlords did any repairs of an internal kind. What intern al repairs they did took place when there was a change of tenancy. Since the War changes of tenancy have been extremely few, and even when changes have taken place people have been so anxious to get inside houses that no very big demand has been made upon landlords for internal repairs to be carried out, and I have no doubt that even if external repairs were carried out, even to the extent merely of painting the houses, the painting trade would he kept so busy that no painters would he out of work for a considerable period. Although this
allowance was made to enable landlords to cover the cost of repairs, the landlords have not done the repairs, and have been able to put some millions into their pockets through this allowance for the repairs which they were to make.
Something should be done for the purpose of giving local authorities adequate powers to utilise houses that have become empty in their areas. I had brought to my notice a short time ago a terrible state of affairs which exists in some dwellings in Hereford or close to Hereford. There is a family of nine at present occupying one room. The mother gave birth to a child and the account stated—I am taking it from the Press—that the elder children were segregated on one side of a curtain in the room in which the birth was taking place, and that three children, one of whom was between three and four years old, lay upon the foot of the mother's bed while the birth took place. I cannot possibly conceive that there could not have been found far more adequate accommodation for that poor woman and her family in such terrible circumstances as those, and, while any thing like that can possibly occur, it seems to me that the existence of houses standing empty in a certain district of the town is a scandal which we ought to put right at the earliest possible moment.
A young friend who is a school teacher brought to my notice a case of one house consisting of 12 rooms, including attics and basement. From that house 40 children of school age were attending the school in which she was teaching. That left out of consideration the number of children below school age, the number of adolescents and those of adult age. Any Government that neglects to use any opportunity for effecting even the slightest possible change for the better is deserving of condemnation. In my own constituency we have an appalling state of affairs, and I should tremble to think of what would take place if it were possible to use the powers which landlords do possess to continue exactions, so far as the tenants are concerned. I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, and I hope sincerely that the House will show by its vote that it. approves of the position which he has taken up on the action of the Government in its belief that 1927 is a reasonable period in which control may
be discontinued. They should tackle the matter in a statesmanlike way, and, so far as control is concerned, everybody should know where he stands.

Mr. RYE: After hearing the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), and listening in particular to the very moving tale. which he told of the woman who was confined, practically in the presence of her children, might I suggest to him that he should have a heart-to-heart talk with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. J. Baker) who, on the 13th of last month, stated that, although he believed the erection of steel houses would bring a considerable amount of work to those in the steel trade who are at present unemployed, yet if the building operatives engaged in the work should get anything less in the way of pay he would rather not see the steel houses erected. I do not think that the hon. Member for Merthyr would hold the same view, having regard to what he has told us, because, if that is the state of affairs in his constituency—and presumably there is a similar state of affairs in other parts of the country—he would be the last. person to agree that those steel houses, which can be put up very rapidly, are not required for the benefit of those who live in such unfortunate circumstances in his own constituency; and I invite the hon. Member, therefore, to take the hon. Member for Wolverhampton aside, and have a good heart-to-heart talk with him.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not like steel houses. I have said so here before. The virtue of steel houses is the shortness of their life, but if they could be made available I do not agree that it is necessary to insist on steel houses being built at less than the trade union rates of wages.

Mr. RYE: I was going to suggest to the hon. Member that even if (those steel houses were built by operatives who received less than the trade union rates of wages it would be better in the circumstances which he has detailed, that these houses should be constructed. Now as regards the real question before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is by way of a diversion, we should now return to the right path.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. RYE: I must apologise for the diversion I have made. Now to return
to the right path. Judging by the speeches from the Opposition Benches, there appears to be no doubt that the House is being asked to believe that the only persons who will suffer by this Bill, if it passes into law, will be the tenants and the working classes. If any grievance is done by this Bill, it is going to be done to the landlords, and not the tenants. Although I hold that view—and I am going to give the House, instances of where the landlords have unduly suffered in the past—I am still going to support this Bill, because I consider it best for the community as a whole. I am not going to fail to support the Bill simply because I consider injustices have been done, and will continue to be done to the landlords, in consequence of the continuance of control. I want to give the House one or two instances that have come within my knowledge where, undoubtedly, the landlords have suffered. Take the position that arises where a landlord, having obtained possession, granted a lease prior to the passing of the 1923 Act, and the rent was then agreed between him and his tenant. I am sure every one in the House knows that, unfortunately, it was found later that if that landlord had not gone through what was almost a farce of serving a week's notice on the tenant, the landlord could not get the benefit of the statutory increases. The result has been—and that has come within my personal knowledge—that a tenant, having obtained a valid lease for a period of years—in the case to which I am referring it was 6½ years—turned round upon the landlord, and claimed that he was not liable to pay the statutory increase. The case was taken to the County Court at Westminster, and the County Court Judge held that, under the wording of the Act, that contention was correct, with the result that the tenant is there to-day rightly claiming to remain for the remainder of the lease, and he is only paying pre-War rent without any of the statutory increases at all. I think everyone will agree that that cannot be a reasonable state of affairs.
I know other cases where landlords have suffered. A landlord purchased certain property, part of which was subject to a condemnation notice served by the London County Council under the London Building Act. The properties that
had been purchased included one shop which was occupied by a woman who carried on a cobbling business, and that woman, it was alleged, had bought in a bed and put it in the back room or parlour behind the shop. In due course the house, which was subject to the first notice and subsequently to an order made by the magistrates was pulled down by the London County Council. While the demolition was being carried out, the County Council served other notices in respect of other properties. Ultimately the whole of those houses—there were five of them—were, with the exception of the actual shop which is in the middle of the block, pulled down. That shop was left standing and the tenant was in possession. The tenant claimed the protection of the Act on the ground that this was a dwelling-place, and on the ground that she had a bed, and for one year she held the fort against the landlord. She was not open to any suggestions of compensation. There she stayed at a rent of 15s. a week which the landlord, obviously, in the circumstances could not accept, and ultimately she had to be paid what to her must have been a very large sum of money, £325. She went out; she who claimed she could not find a habitation, she who claimed she must reside there as the only place where she could live with her children, went out with 025 in her pocket, free of rent for the year, with her solicitor's charges paid by the owner of the property, and she went immediately to a basement opposite which, under the Public Health Act, cannot be used for residential purposes. There is a clear instance of where hardship was clone to the landlord, and I should have thought. that in this Bill a Clause should have been inserted giving the County Court Judge an over-riding right in a case like that, where he was satisfied that fair compensation had been offered, and where he was of opinion that there was greater hardship to the landlord than the tenant to make an order for possession. I am not going to press for that Amendment, because I think this Bill, taking it as a whole, is the best thing that could be done for the community.
Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches may say they are not very much
concerned with the tale I have told, seeing that the person who suffered was a landlord, and, therefore, one, of what they would term, the capitalist class. What, however, do they say to the holding up of a site in Hors ferry Road within a few hundred yards of this House, property that belonged to a charitable institution, the Peabody Trust? It is a fact that the Peabody Trust had acquired a large block of derelict slum dwellings, and they were held up in 1919 by being unable to complete their scheme. They built the main part of their new houses to accommodate people of the working classes, and they were held up because there were a number of tenants in the remaining houses who declined to go out. Ultimately, during the last two years, only two were left Alternative accommodation was obtained for one of those tenants and his family, hut the remaining tenant., who had a small shop, declined to go out. Unfortunately, he only paid 10s. a week, and under a decision of the Courts, the only alternative accommodation to get him out was not only the equivalent of the dwelling-rooms but the equivalent of the shop, and I need hardly tell the House that in that district it was impossible to find such accommodation. He was there for another year, and only recently was got out on payment. of a very large sum of money for a man in his position. He had for one year, and for the previous year held up a scheme which would have resulted in the erection of dwellings costing £20,000 to accommodate 19 or 20 families. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that was fair or reasonable? Would they not suggest that the charitable institution, which I believe the Peabody Trust to be had been badly treated?
I can give many more instances. Take the case of the building lessee. What happens to the building lessee? Has he had any assistance or compensation or advantage under these Acts? He has not, and he is not going to get it under this Bill. A building lessee—a speculator, I will admit, and some may say is not entitled to any consideration—had taken a block of houses on a building agreement at a ground rent, on the understanding that he took the rents that were being paid by the tenants under the agreements, the aggregate of those being less than the ground rents, he to pay those ground rents till the agreements ran out, and he to then pull down and carry
out a scheme. Then came the Rents Bill. Instead of losing two or three hundreds a year for two or three years he has lost ever since, and looks like going on losing for more years. Has anybody given him compensation? When he undertook those obligations he was under the impression that when he got possession he would have the residue of an 80 years' term, less two years. That 78 years is not 78 years now. If this Bill comes into law, it will be a shorter term than ever, and if the Act be continued, as is quite likely, what is this unhappy individual going to have? He may have 65 years before he is done with it, and still have the obligation to put up a substantial building. Surely in a case like that at least it would have been reasonable to put in a Clause under which the landlord, the freeholder, was bound to increase the term so as to give the building lessee his original term.
We are not complaining of that. I myself hold a building agreement on those terms, I do not know whether it is in Order to refer to personal matters: but I had the privilege and pleasure of paying half of that sum of £325. I had the pleasure of losing half of the rent, and I had the pleasure of paying half the solicitor's bill of costs. I do not ask anything to be put in for the benefit of landlords in this Bill. I say the Bill is necessary for the community as a whole. Therefore, despite my personal views, I am prepared to support the Bill. I would like to refer to the litigation that arose under the 1923 Act and the preceding Act. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to say that really there was not much difficulty in interpretation, and that if anybody had paid a little attention to those Acts, he would have had no necessity to run to a lawyer. So far as it is possible or right for a back bencher and a new Member to differ from anyone on the Treasury Bench, I am afraid I do not agree. Opinions on the Acts are very con fusing. At the same time, I do think that they have now been clarified by the litigation which has taken place, and, being so clarified, there is not much likelihood of having further trouble. I hope the House will support this Bill, and that, if necessary, when the 2½ years is up, if there is not sufficient accommodation, there will be a further extension.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I rise to support the Motion against which I have not
heard argument or reason from the Government Benches. I wonder whether the Prime Minister was consulted in the drafting of this Bill and the actual day fixed for control to cease in 1927. The Prime Minister made a very strong appeal last Friday to this House, which I appreciated very strongly, for peace and goodwill, and I noticed that the Government of which he is the head have decided that they will be a signal example of peace and goodwill by ceasing control on Christmas Day, 1927. It seems to me that this Bill is full of sins of omission. It is a clever device to hoodwink the seven million tenants now protected under the existing Rents Act into a false sense of security for the next 2½ years. I agree with the ex-Minister of Health that this is a subtle policy to get decontrol by stealth in the course of the next few years. The Minister of Health presented his beloved Bill as if it were a bed of roses, but I think that time will prove it to be a bed of thorns. The Bill, in my opinion, is a very real tax upon the patience of the poor. We have heard a great deal about bad tenants, and I know that there are bad tenants, as there are good landlords; but both are the exception, in our experience of the administration of the Rent Acts from 1915 to the present date. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I have had a fairly large experience in dealing with these Acts during the last 10 years in the South Wales coalfield, and that is my personal experience, anyhow.
If we are to treat this question in a spirit of goodwill, I think the problem we have to face may be stated thus: how to cause the minimum hardship to the landlord class in the effort to obtain maximum security for the tenant class. Along with the rent control question you have the housing problem. The one is dependent upon the other, and it appears to me that the control of houses, whether we like it or not, is a necessary condition until the supply of houses is about equal to the demand. The house owner to-day, because of the scarcity value of his house property, is in a monopoly position, and it is no comparison to say that he is suffering hardship because he cannot sell his property to the highest bidder, or let it to the highest bidder, since there is no open market, as there is in most other articles in this country.
I thought it was understood that there was now general party agreement that the housing problem on a national scale means that we require something like 2,500,000 new houses, which, with the best goodwill and co-operation of all concerned in the building industry, of the Government and of the landlord class, will take 15 years from now to build.
In this building programme, without which there is no hope of decontrol nationally, it is admitted that during the next three years, 1925, 1926 and 1927—the period to be covered in England and Wales by this Bill—we shall have, of State-aided houses, if we are successful with the building programme, exactly 300,000 by the end of 1927, which coincides with the extended period of control. The maximum point, however, in the new building programme will not be reached until 10 years hence, and will have to be maintained for the last five of the 15 years to complete the programme of 2,500,000 houses. I think it must be obvious, in face of this fact, upon which parties are generally agreed, that there is no need of much prophecy to say what is going to be the degree of house shortage for some years. I think it must be obvious to everyone that the shortage will remain very acute for the next five years, and will remain very serious for the next to years. Therefore no prophet is required to predict that, whether the Government will agree to our proposal to extend the period of control much beyond two and a half years, or whether they adhere to the 1927 limit, when 1927 comes, even with the utmost success in building operations, the shortage will still be so acute that the Government will be compelled to continue control.
The Minister of Health, in his opening speech, in which he explained his proposals, pointed out that the reason the Government have adopted the policy of a short continuation of the period of control is because we do not know what will he the outcome of future building for the next few years, and should it turn out, as he tacitly admitted it would, in 1927, that the shortage was still so acute that it would be in the national interest to continue control, he said it could he easily arranged by continuing the existing Bill, if it becomes law, in
the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Up to now I have credited the Minister of Health with a very extensive and thorough knowledge of the housing problem, but his confidence in imagining that the Act could be satisfactorily continued year by year at the end of 1927 is to me a revelation, because we now know that it is physically impossible to build more than 300,000 or so of houses within the period for which it is proposed to continue control.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: What about the new apprentices?

Mr. JONES: Allowing for all that, I understood that the master builders, as well as the operatives, who are the experts in the industry, have agreed that that is the maximum they can produce within the three years—it is in the scale; it is in the White Paper—and that the maximum production will not take place until 10 years hence. Therefore, it is obvious that for the next 10 years there must be such an acute shortage that a mere continuation of control year by year will be the most unsettling policy imaginable. Tenants generally, and the owners also, will not like any such policy. There is no certainty about. it; it gives a maximum of anxiety for landlords and tenants alike, with a minimum of security.
Then it appears to me that the Minister of Health has neglected to be loyal to those who were loyal to himself and his party at the General Election. I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) that it is better now definitely to fix the period of control for the next five years. That will relieve the anxiety, not so much of the weekly and monthly tenant, who may, for the moment, be satisfied to he aware that he may have the protection of the Rent Acts for the next 2½ years, but there are in this country, according to my estimate, something like 2,000,000 tenants of houses of the villa type in the residential parts of the country. They occupy the higher-rated houses, and they are not weekly or monthly tenants. They are occupying houses let to them quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly, and a number of the higher type of villas are let on leases o:: two, three, four, five or seven years. Many of these leases will expire before the end of 1927, and most
of these quarterly, half-yearly and yearly tenancies will expire at any time between now and 1927. By this proposal the Government are actually going to give the landlords, generally speaking, the power either to evict these middle-class tenants from their villa residences, or to force them to pay much higher rents in order to get renewals of their tenancies. That is human nature; that is business. The Tory party pride themselves upon their capacity to extract profit out of business, and they will extract it with n vengeance if this Bill becomes law. If they made it five years, the great majority at any rate of these middle-class tenants, as well as working-class tenants, would be protected generally. It is a betrayal of the middle-class supporters of the Tory Party at, the last General Election. I was taught, even in my school days, that the Tory party was the stupid party, but I never imagined them to be as stupid as that. There is one consolation, that it will drive some of their erstwhile supporters into the Labour party.
I think the House, should face the fact that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health some time ago admitted that we must be very careful about this date of decontrol, and that we could only do it when we know whether there is any likelihood of a sufficiency of houses to overtake the shortage. Is that the policy and opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to-day? He nods his head, i f he does not speak, and he agrees. Perhaps he will explain, when he rises to speak, why it is that he is so confident that it can be done in 2½ years. My information is that we have at the present time in this country about 7,000,000 tenants who come more or less under the protection of the Rent Acts of 1920, 1923, and 1924. Of those 7,000,000, about 5,500,000 are weekly and monthly tenants. Probably another 1,000,000 are quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly tenants, and there may be some 500,000 who have leases of a few years as their system of tenancy. In addition, we have probably between 750,000 and 1,000,000 owner-occupiers, who are outside the scope of these Acts, and I believe—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that there are probably about 250,000 tenants in municipal houses, who are also outside the scope of the Acts.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a remarkable fact which has followed this legislation and State house-building since the War. We have now in this country three main types of tenants, compared with one main type before the War. The first comprises the bulk of the population occupying controlled houses at restricted rents. The second is the increasing number of tenants of municipal houses, now probably some 250,000, and, if the building programme for the next 15 years is successful, they may be increased to as many as 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 in that period. The third type, however, is one of very great interest. It is a new type, created under the Act of 1923, namely, either an owner-occupier or a tenant of a decontrolled house. This type of occupying owner or tenant is a special creation of the Tory party, and they are welcome to the fruits of their labour. The decontrol of vacant houses has been going on steadily since 1923, and is now creating a new social discontent, which is rapidly increasing.
It is doing it in two ways. Firstly, when a house now becomes vacant for any reason other than arrears of rent, it is decontrolled, and the owner does one of two things right away. 'Usually he keeps the house vacant, patches it up to make it look as nice and new as he can, and seeks to sell it at an exorbitant price; and houses are kept vacant in that way for many months as the result of this de control. When the spider gets the fly into his web, when he sells the house to a new owner, who is anxious to get a house to live in, with security of tenure or ownership, at any cost, very often the new owner has only a little savings, and has to borrow money on a heavy mortgage to pay the bulk of the enhanced price of this house. That man then has the satisfaction of living in the house, but he has the bitter experience of having to pay very heavy interest charges on his mortgage, ground rent, Income Tax, rates, and a little money also each year to keep the house in good repair. That is a very heavy burden on the decontrolled house that is sold, as compared with the position of tenants under conditions of control. He has to bear this burden, and he bears it solely for the sake of security, and not for the love of ownership. Most of these men, even of the working class,
who have become the owners of their houses in recent years, have become owners not because they are anxious to own a house, but because it is the only security that offers itself to be left undisturbed, owing to the acute competition for vacant houses.
The second way in which decontrolled houses are now creating discontent is that when the landlord fails to sell his house at a price high enough to satisfy himself, there is no inducement to him to sell it at a reasonable price, because he can always rely upon letting his house at an exorbitant rent, if he cannot sell it at an exorbitant price. The new tenant who goes into a decontrolled house has no security of tenure even if he pays a high rent. He is not protected by the Rent Acts, and the landlord can turn him out on due notice if he can get another tenant foolish enough to pay a still higher rent. I suggest that the Government should take these points into. consideration, and seriously consider the request that they should continue control of all houses, and not decontrol any more for the next five years, leaving the County Court Judges to decide cases of hardship as between owners who want possession for various reasons and the sitting tenant. If the Government are really anxious to help the great mass of tenants in this country, and if they speed up their own housing programme and provide new houses for the people as quickly as possible, the tenants of the existing old houses will be glad to yield them up to the owners so that they may occupy the new houses.
It seems to me that the Government are inclined to depart from the housing policy laid down by the ex-Minister of Health in the Act of 1924. There seems to be a desire to get away from the building of houses for letting, to the building of houses for sale, and to give the lump-sum subsidy to the builder under private enterprise who will provide houses for sale. Obviously, what the people want is reasonable house shelter at reasonable rents, and I venture to say that the mass of the workers would be willing to pay a rather higher rent for a municipal house, rather than be encouraged even to own their own houses, because they would have all the advantages of ownership in a municipal house without any of its disadvantages.
Now I come to the point with regard to the 40 per cent. increase in the net rent. That has been permitted since 1920, and it is proposed to continue it. The Minister of Health, in his opening speech, taunted me with being inconsistent on the ground that, while I had always advocated a reduction of the 40 per cent. increase in the net rent whenever the Tories brought in a Bill, I was conveniently silent when the Labour party brought in a Rent Bill last year. The Labour party's Rent Bill, however, was not intended to be a comprehensive Bill dealing with all these items. There was a private Member's Bill, which received a Second Reading in this House by a very large majority, which was sent upstairs, and which provided for that reduction of the increase in the net rent from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. Therefore, there was no inconsistency in not putting it into the Labour party's Bill, which was a short Bill to deal mainly with evictions.
I venture to say that, while the increase of 40 per cent. might have been reasonable enough in 1920, to meet the then high cost of repairs, it is not reasonable to-clay. As the ex-Minister of Health said this afternoon, the cost of materials and wages for repair work in 1920 was estimated by the Salisbury Committee at 150 per cent. above the pre-War level, and they recommended, on that ground, that a 40 per cent. increase on the net rent should be permitted to the house owner. To-day that cost is 80 per cent., as compared with 150 per cent., above the pre-War level, and I certainly think that that justifies a substantial reduction in the increase. There is another reason which I should like to put forward why the Government should seriously consider a reduction. The cost of living to-day is about 80 per cent. higher than in 1914, but the general average of wages throughout most industries in the country is much below what it was in 1920. As a matter of fact, it is about half what it was then, and, in particular, of those classes of workers who have contributed most to the development of the heavy industries of the country, the miners of Great Britain are to-day working at actual earning wages which are at least 30 per cent. lower than the cost of living. We have, in addition, over 100,000 miners entirely out work to-day because of closed-down collieries and depression of trade,
and at least 250,000 who are working short time and bringing home very low wages indeed. It would be interesting to know what will be the attitude of this Government, which is maintaining this 40 per cent. increase in the net rent for 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 tenants in this country, when the miners bring in their Minimum Wage Bill on the 27th March. I hope they will then bear that in mind and add a little to that Bill for that purpose.
While things are bad with the miners, they are still worse, I understand, in the engineering and shipbuilding industries, and for these reasons, while 40 per cent may have been quite justifiable in 1920, and admitting that it was justifiable, surely it is not justifiable to-day in view of the tremendous reduction in the wage and in the standard of life of the workers generally. Therefore if the Bill goes through as it now stands, it will surely lead to a great deal of discontent among middle-class as well as working-class tenants. So I urge the Government to agree to extend the period of control definitely for the next five years and to reduce the net rent to 20 per cent., and if the landlord refuses to carry out the repairs after the tenant has secured a certificate from the sanitary authority within three months, they shall insert a Clause to give the local authorities 'he power to do the repairs and to charge the owner the cost. I also agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) when he suggested that when the Government bring in their new Rating Bill, it should include a Clause that all houses that are kept empty for a given period, obviously for the purpose of trying to get a high price for sale or an exorbitant rent, the house, as long as it remains empty, should be rated as if it were occupied. I am well aware that. that cannot be done under the existing rating law, but a Clause should be put into the new Bill to give effect to it, and it will have a very healthy influence in getting houses rented or sold quicker than is now done when they are decontrolled I admit that there are bad tenants as there are good landlords, but the two are an exception to the rule in my experience, and it is for the bad landlord, as well as the had tenant, that all this legislation is necessary. I therefore hope the Govern-
ment will agree to the suggestions we have made.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sure the House has heard once again with great interest, I might also say with entertainment, the lion. Member who has just spoken. He has his own views on the matter. I remember very well the last speech I heard bird make on this question in which he compared landlords to vultures. In the interval he has had an opportunity of extending his study of natural history, and to-day they are spiders. I think the hon. Member will at any rate agree with me in this, that seldom has he taken part in a Debate which has provoked so little attention in the House. That, I think, can be explained by the fact that, taking the restrictive legislation as a whole, it is clear that the Act is working, so far as a difficult Act of that kind can work, fairly and smoothly. I remember very well Debates when the House would he thronged, when there were all sorts of cases of injustice and inequality brought forward. But the most remarkable feature of the Debate to-day has really been the few instances. when you consider the millions of landlords and tenants involved, which have been given of hardship and wrong. The late Minister of Health relied for the greater portion of his speech on a leaflet which he produced from Sheffield. So far from demonstrating the inequalities and hardships of the Act, the leaflet in my judgment really proves how tenants can obtain their rights very quickly indeed without resort to litigation at all and receive very substantial sums in payment. The best part of the leaflet is the concluding portion, which the right hon. Gentleman omitted to read. After referring to the various payments which have been made and wrongs righted, the leaflet concludes by saying:
You can stop these scandals by joining the Sheffield District Tenants' Protection Association, entrance fee 6d., contributions 1d. per week.
That really demonstrates pretty fairly the position as it is to-day. One can, of course, find on either side, landlord or tenant, difficulties and inequalities that arise, but speaking from my experience, and I think I can speak for a constituency which certainly has its share of
troubles in this connection, the present provisions in relation to rent restriction are, as a whole, fair and equitable, and I think that is one of the strongest reasons why they should be continued, as they are being continued by this Bill, for a further period of 2½ years.
The hon. Member who has just spoken said he has investigated the matter and found that the provisions of the Bill were going to conclude on a Christmas day, and he pictured tenants moving out on a day which certainly ought to be devoted to other things. But I think he overlooked, as did other hon. Members, a statement my right hon. Friend made, namely, that obviously in an Act of this character the matter must be reviewed at the end of the period and, if there was reason for it, the Act would be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the next year and, if necessary, the year after that, and so on. I think, apart altogether from any party or political considerations, that is an obviously desirable and reasonable way of treating this matter. Obviously no one can say what the position in two and a half years will be. The alternative is the one put before the House by the ex-Minister of Health and the hon. Member for Pontypridd. They say, "We want this Bill continued for 15 years," and the hon. Member opposite was very candid with the House in the reason he gave for the desirability of continuing it for 15 years. He said, "Look at the programme of the building trade. Bead the report they made, and you cannot possibly get sufficient housing accommodation for 15 years. People must wait that period, and therefore the Bent Bill must be continued for that time."
That is a very extraordinary statement. The hon. Member certainly cannot take it from this side of the House that we agree that the people have to wait 15 years. He has entirely overlooked other methods of construction which might be utilised. He told the House that the Government consulted with the building trade, and the building trade came to the conclusion that all they could do was this 15 years' programme. That is hardly a statement the hon. Member would be prepared to make on the platforms on which he so eloquently addresses up and down the country. The people of the
country certainly are not prepared to wait 15 years for housing accommodation. He can take it from me, at any rate, that we are entirely against him in that connection. The path of housing may be difficult and troublesome, but I should be very sorry to think we have to sit down calmly and fold our hands and wait for 15 years to go by, by which time many people will probably be dead, and that that is the whole position so far as the Labour party is concerned. That is not the position on this side of the House, and the overwhelming reason for continuing a Bill of this character for two and a half or three years is that the situation can be reviewed at the end of that period and, if necessary, the Bill would have to be continued.
I want also to refer to one or two statements made by the hen. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) with regard to the Amendment in his name. I know he is very anxious on the question of empty houses. He has often urged it on the House and he has quite rightly seized this opportunity of putting it forward again. I want to put to him this point of view, first, that there is certainly a great difference of opinion as to the magnitude of the problem of the empty house, and, secondly, that, unless there is good evidence that the problem is of a reasonable magnitude, it is unwise to bring forward any further restrictive legislation at present. I had sent me a few days ago a pamphlet by a league with which I know he and his friends are familiar—the London Housing League. Its objects are stated in the pamphlet sent. me, which played not an important part, but some part, in the last London County Council Election, to be non-political, and I see the Right Rev. H. Russell-Wakefield is the president, and I believe the hon. Member for Bethnal Green is a member. The very first statement in this pamphlet, which is entitled, "How to get houses," is this:
An empty working-class dwelling can hardly be found,
and therefore, if that is a true statement of the facts, which does not come apparently from any political party, it would at any rate seem that so far as London is concerned, in accordance with the statement of this League, of which well
known people like Major Barnes and Sir Edgar Bonham-Carter are officers, it would not appear from their view of the position—

Mr. T. THOMSON: In reply to a question the other day, the Minister of Health said that in the London County Council area on 31st March there were 9,461 empty properties.

Sir K. WOOD: That may be perfectly true, but have you distinguished as to what they are? They are dealing with working-class houses. It is, I daresay, true that there are a number of bigger houses in London which are empty. I remember very well in the days of a previous Minister of Health, attempts were made to deal with the big houses of London and to see whether they could be converted into flats, and a very disastrous experiment it proved. The, expenses of conversion were almost prohibitive, and in the result, notwithstanding the active steps which were taken, it was found that no appreciable additional housing accommodation resulted. The short answer to the hon. Member is that the lack of confidence which will undoubtedly be caused by further interference at present with the people upon whom we have to a large extent to depend to put up the houses, would, in my opinion, overbalance anything which could be obtained by taking over a few empty houses compulsorily. Also the hon. Member should remember that if a local authority really wants to take these empty houses it has power to do it by purchase, presumably getting value for its money, and I think that is a far better way of dealing with the situation than by bringing in a further restrictive law. I think that would commend itself to most housing reformers to-day. In every up-to-date statement of housing reform which I have seen recently there has not been a word said about this empty house question. The matter is, on the whole, too small, and the best remedy is either for the local authorities to purchase a house if they can do so, or, better still, to put up as many houses as possible.
A further suggestion has been made by the late Minister of Health that no further houses should be permitted to be decontrolled. He has made two or three
suggestions. One was that the 40 per cent. addition should be reduced—a very extraordinary suggestion coming from him. I was very interested to hear the little bit of history the hon. Member for Pontypridd gave of the various Rent Bills which came before the House, and many hon. Members here to-day will recollect very well, as well as the late Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health, the efforts which were made by the Government in relation to rent restriction. The Government brought in a Bill to amend rent restriction legislation, and the only suggestion the right hon. Gentleman made at that time was a Clause to permit the unemployed to live rent free at the expense of their landlords. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), speaking of that effort, said it proposed to do the right thing in the wrong way. My comment on those proposals is that there was no suggestion coming at that time from the right hon. Gentleman to alter the 40 per cent. There was no suggestion at that time that houses should cease to be controlled.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances arising from it. At that time, owing to certain action, a large number of people, particularly in England, were being evicted from their homes, and there was an agitation for a Bill to be introduced limiting the power to evict people from their homes. It was not a question of dealing with rent nor with control. A Bill was introduced for that temporary purpose, but the Minister of Health extended it more than some of the people who asked him to introduce it wanted.

Sir K. WOOD: I am very interested to hear that explanation, because I remember very well that the Minister at that time was pressed by members of his own party to deal with the suggestion he is now making, and it is very interesting to observe, when we have the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 40 per cent. should be reduced, that he was the very person who, when he brought in his own Housing Bill, told the local authorities that they must base the rents of the new houses on the rents of similar old houses plus 40 per cent.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case that the late Minister left in the Department the outline of a Bill?

8.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I am not permitted by certain rules and Regulations to say what he left or did not leave behind him in the Department. The late Parliamentary Secretary can perhaps make a better statement than I on the matter, but I myself have not seen it. I know that the whole of his housing legislation and his scheme is actually based upon the 40 per cent. addition, and 'f anyone wants to see it, because the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten all that has taken place, he has only to read the Circular to local authorities which was issued by him in 1924. If that was his view then ho has changed it. [Interruption.] I prefer interruptions to come from the late Parliamentary Secretary. who was familiar with all the details. It certainly is a most remarkable thing, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus is nothing to the conversion of the ex-Minister of Health. It was only a few months ago that he passed the whole of the financial arrangements of his scheme and invited local authorities—

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to interrupt, but surely no one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary the change in frame of mind that occurs on a transference across the Floor of the House.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health will be very indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he has now furnished. In fact, you will find, at any rate so far as this country is concerned, that the present arrangement, both with regard to the Act itself and the payment of rent which now appertains, is fully accepted as fair and equitable. Anyone would think, from the statements which have been made by the ex-Minister of Health, and particularly by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, that the whole of the property owners of this country were capitalists, people who were seeking to "down" tenants and to take every possible advantage of them. If I may respectfully say so without offence, it shows a very limited and ignorant view of the conditions of property holding in this country. I suppose that at present—it is a very fine and valuable thing—the working classes of this country own £400,000,000 worth of house property, and 1 suppose that the building societies of
the country, which are composed very largely of members of the working classes, have £83,000,000 invested in house property.
When I hear suggestions made, apparently without consultation with people of that kind, with trade unions and co-operative societies which have large sums of money invested in working-class property, that all these people with the others are guilty of some sort of malpractice and unfair treatment, I think it is showing a very ignorant view of the situation. This Act is very difficult. You can find numbers of cases where on the one hand there is a bad tenant or on the other hand a bad landlord, but, speaking generally, few Members will deny that. taking. it as a whole, and having regard to the difficulty of legislation of this character, at present the Act is working smoothly, and the County Court. Judges are dealing sympathetically with cases that are constantly arising, and—a most extraordinary thing—there is no outcry in the country against. the Act. I think most people would prefer that rent restriction legislation should, if possible, be abolished. The real solution of this problem is not a 15 years' programme, is not the reducing of rents or things of that kind. The real solution is the provision of more houses. The Government are doing well in continuing this Bill for a further reasonable time, and in devoting their skill to the real solution of the problem by getting more working-class houses.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. J. JONES: Before that Question is put, cannot I say something?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the next occasion I hope to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. JONES: There is something I want to say in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. SPEAKER: That can be heard on the next occasion.

Debate accordingly adjourned; to ho resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill to improve the aerodrome at Croydon, and the Bill is necessary for the purpose of diverting a road that now cuts across the aerodrome. Two years ago the Civil Aviation Advisory Board recommended that this action be taken. Since then we have had the unfortunate accident at Croydon, on Christmas Eve, and the report, on that accident, of Sir Arthur Colefax emphasised the recommendation of the Civil Aviation Advisory Board in favour of this improvement. The matter is one of great urgency. A Bill is necessary, as otherwise we cannot divert the part of the road which is known as Plough Lane. The Bill is a hybrid Bill, which means that when the House has given it a Second Reading it goes to a Select Committee, before which any objections from local residents or bodies can be effectively made. But I can assure the House that, so far as concerned the local authority in whose area the aerodrome is situated, there is likely to be no objection at all. Moreover, there are Clauses in the Bill for giving adequate compensation to owners, whether public or private, who may suffer by the divergence of the road. Without the Bill we cannot divert the road, and without diverting the road we cannot make Croydon aerodrome, which is the principal aerodrome of civil aviation in the Kingdom, as safe and as extensive as it should be for the traffic that uses it. I hope I have said enough to show to the House that this is a small Bill of an uncontroversial kind, that although it is small it is very important from the point of view of the safety of British flying, and I very much hope that the House will allow me to get the Second Reading this evening, with the knowledge in hon. Members' minds that, I shall move that it go to a Select Committee, where any details can be considered and any questions of compensation or of grievance can be properly weighed.

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill, presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL).

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move,
 That no treat', shall be ratified and no diplomatic arrangement or understanding with a Foreign State involving, directly or indirectly, national obligations shall be con-chided without the consent of Parliament and no preparations for co-operation in war between the naval, military, or air staffs, and the naval, military, or air staffs of a Foreign State shall be lawful unless consequent upon such arrangement or understanding; and this Resolution shall be communicated to all States with which this country is in diplomatic relations and to the League of Nations 
In doing so I am certain I shall be expressing the feelings of a good many of my colleagues if I say that I wish the man who had a good deal to do with the actual wording of this Resolution—Mr. Morel, the late Member for Dundee—were here to move or support it. When we realise full democratic control in this country, we shall owe it not a little to Mr. Morel's strenuous exposition. He cared for nothing in life more than this. Having given 10 years to winning freedom for black men in Africa from slavery, he spent the rest of his life force in trying to bring safety to white men in Europe from war. The real meaning of the Resolution which I move is no less than that. The aim and the intention is to save future generations of our country from what has befallen ourselves. The Labour party, at any rate, has ceased to believe in the hatching of peace in secret, even by well-intentioned rulers. We
believe it can be secured only by the deliberate and overt determination of the mass of the common people, to whom war has become a horror, a fear and an abomination, to resist all policies which lead up to it. We feel that the first requisite for this new security is that this House should no longer have, merely nominally, the last voice in deciding foreign policy but that actually, ordinarily, and by established practice, the control of foreign policy should be as much in the hands of this House as the control of domestic policy has been for 100 years. If it is right that, in the interest of home policy, this House should make laws, it is just as vital to the existence of the country that it should sanction treaties which very often are more important than laws. If for a century or two we have ceased to tolerate secret commitments to national expenditure of money, just as little ought we to tolerate secret commitments which may result in the expenditure of the blood of the nation, and the Labour Government when it was in power decided to attempt to inaugurate a new regime. My hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Poesonby) declared the new policy of the Labour Government in these terms:
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay on the Table of both Houses of Parliament every Treaty, when signed for a period of 21 days. after which the Treaty will be ratified and published and circulated in the Treaty 'Series. In the case of important. Treaties, the Government will, of course, take the opportunity of submitting them to the House for discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will he found for the discussion of the Treaty in question. By this means secret Treaties and secret clauses of Treaties will be rendered i In possible.
A little later he said:
During our term of office, we shall inform the House of all agreements, commitments, and understandings which may in any way bind the nation to specific action in certain circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April;, 1924; cols. 2003–5, Vol. 171.]
One of the first declarations of the present Foreign Secretary was that the present Government did not consider themselves bound to adopt that procedure.
For reasons which I intend to give in a few minutes, I confess I was genuinely surprised at that announcement, but, owing to it, until we know better we arc forced to assume that we have reverted to the old conditions, that secret diplomacy has again become possible, that this House is not necessarily to be in formed of acts of policy by the Government, and that its consent will not necessarily be required to vital acts of State in relation to foreign policy. Therefore, on behalf of the Labour party, we have taken immediate steps to raise this question, and I propose to point out. why this is liable to become a first-class political issue unless the Government are prepared to modify what appears to be their attitude.
The old excuse for the continuance of the system under which foreign policy was laregly kept out of the purview of this House which satisfied our predecessors, more or less, 15 years ago, was essentially this. The argument was: We choose as Foreign Secretary a man of probity, wisdom and caution, we trust the policy to him, and he with his advisers will tell us all that is necessary. I quite agree that we have almost always chosen a man of those characteristics as Foreign Secretary, and I do not for a moment say that we have now departed from that practice—far from it—but the reasoning is no longer valid. Fifteen years ago it would have been very difficult to find a Foreign Secretary whose character, in general public estimation, rose more to the height of the argument than did that of Lord Grey of Falloden. But what happened at the start of the Great War? Some of us who are sitting on this bench did not wait until the War was over to declare that whether our going into the War was right or wrong, our people had very little voice in deciding whether they went into it or not, and that the secrecy of eight years of diplomatic and military preparation before the War made the consultation of the House of Commons at the last moment, when Fate was already hammering on the door, only a sham and a farce. Many have said it to-day where few ventured to say it then. I wish to quote to the House a speech which was made soon after the War by a man whose actions we may criticise, but whose candour we all admire. That is the
present Foreign Secretary. I am afraid it is rather a long quotation, but I think it is important that I should read it, because it will, in the words of the existing Foreign Secretary, give the whole argument that I myself want to put forward. Speaking on 8th February, 1922, the present Foreign Secretary used these words:
We found ourselves on a certain Monday listening to a speech by Lord Grey at this Box which brought us face to face with war, and upon which followed our declaration. That was the first public notification to the country, or to anyone by the Government of the day, of the position of the British Government and of the obligations which it had assumed. It is true that Lord Grey, speaking at this Box, said that it was for the House of Commons to decide whether they would enter into war or not. Was the House of Commons free to decide? Relying upon the arrangements made between the two Governments, the French coasts were undefended… There had been the closest negotiations and arrangements between our two Governments and our two staffs. There was not a word on paper binding this country, but in honour it was bound as it had never been bound before—I do not say wrongfully; I think rightly.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: It should not have been secret.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree. That is my whole point, and I was coming to it."
Then, later on, he said:
Suppose that engagement had been made publicly in the light of day. Suppose it had been laid before this House, and approved by this House, might not the events of those August days of 1914 have been different? It is not, at any rate, clear that our intervention came as a great surprise and a great shock to the German Government, that they were wholly unprepared for it, and that some few among them …. saw at once that German ambitions would never be realised in the war in which they had already engaged, and from which they could not escape? If we had had that, if our obligations had been known and definite, it is at least possible, and I think it is probable"—
Those are the words of the present Foreign Secretary—
that war would have been avoided in 1914."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1922; cols. 197–9, Vol. 150.]
That is why I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary should be the man to reverse the policy which was begun last year by the Labour Government. The Foreign Secretary so clearly sees the issue. "Was the House of Commons free to decide?" It was not. It is true
that Lord Grey and his apologists have always argued that Parliament was free to decide, because Parliament was asked on 3rd August to sanction the policy which was revealed after eight years, but, really, to interpret democratic consultation as meaning a twelfth-hour acquiescence in decisions running over a period of eight years, and unknown to the country, to believe and assert that self-government means permission, if we can, to throw over secret obligations involving, not indeed the honour of the people, but the honour of the Government, at the last moment, is an astounding misinterpretation of democracy. That amazing misinterpretation has probably done more than any other single thing to relegate a great historical party to two back benches, but it has done more than that. It has created, at any rate in a great part of our people, a deep-seated determination that what occurred for us shall not occur for our children, that their fate shall not be, as ours was, in the hands of a few elder statesmen, assisted by coteries of civil servants and soldiers. We want their fate to be their own; and let them bring it on their own heads if they want to.
I cannot make up my mind to think that the present Government do not realise something of the new state of feeling. I hope they will not respond with the blank negation of the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), because, if so, in many ways a serious situation begins to arise. Here we have a new appreciation throughout the country, intensely strong in some quarters and unquestionably existing in others, that things ought to change. The British w ay of making formidable political and constitutional changes is always preferably the gradual way. We like, as a people, to move from precedent to precedent, and that was what the Labour Government. hoped, that a moderate change of practice could gradually he firmly established and then expanded, if it answered to the desires and approval of the people. But how, if the present Government will not even continue the beginnings which the Labour Government made? How, if we cannot trust to the gradual evolution of the new system which we began? We are faced with this: Even if a Labour Government, some years hence, had full power for a certain
number of years and carried out the practice which was established by the late Labour Government, we have no guarantee whatever that our successors would not proceed immediately to retract that when they came into power. What the Government ought to realise, in the first place, is this, that we shall be forced immediately into the position that the only course for us is, when we get the chance, to give the validity of law to the constitutional change, that we shall have to make up our minds to confer the Treaty-making power and the power of making war upon the House of Commons by legal enactment, and to transfer by Statute the Royal Prerogative to Parliament. If the Government are not going to try to continue our policy, it is absolutely inevitable that we shall be forced into that course.
The second result to which I must now turn is liable to be very serious too. We have no guarantee as to what may not be done by the present Government in the course of the next few years. They are not more honourable men than Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey. Those statesmen did not really let us know what they were doing. I do not go over the past, hut, unless we have an understanding such as is laid down in this Motion, we have no guarantee. Wars. of course, do riot originally arise from small causes and small and momentary follies of nations. They arise from conditions where there exists an amount of passion and prejudice, where wars are beginning to be expected. It is out of this sort of conditions that wars arise, and it was largely out of the expectation that we should fight Germany that the war with Germany arose—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and the consequent preparations. Here we have a situation which might be very much the same. We have an intense prejudice about Russia, or very strong opinions, as we choose to consider it, and how are we to know that surreptitious alliances are not being prepared against the Soviet Republics? How are we to know it?
We were told that there was no preparation by the Liberal Government. How are we to know it? The Government may say: We do not intend to enter into
any secret obligations. Why, then, should they not agree to our proposition if they have no objection to this House knowing, and if they desire to carry on a policy which secures us from what we are afraid of? How are we to know that there may not be, some years hence per haps, military discussions with the Poles? And in other parts of the world, how are we to know that consultations may not go on with other nations for the security of the Pacific? The practice inaugurated by the Labour Government would protect us. But owing to the action of the Government we have been forced out of that position, and we have got to look round for other methods. I want to call the attention of the Government to a Resolution which was recently passed unanimously by the Labour party. It runs as follows:
No Treaty or Convention of any kind shall be binding upon this country or will be recognised as such by any future Labour Government until it has been confirmed by Parliament.
I ask the Government to consider the implications of that. Even Governments with a great majority are eventually transitory. It is a reasonable expectation, both at home and abroad, that the alternative to a Conservative Government may be Labour rulers. Therefore foreign nations entering into relations with us will have to take into consideration this declaration, which I am asked officially by the labour party to call attention to. If they want to make treaties with Britain, unless those treaties are ratified by Parliament, they will have no stable national validity. Unsanctioned treaties will have ceased to be national acts of State; they will have become Conservative acts. Under these circumstances I invite the Government not to oppose a rigid refusal to this Motion. It is no use their pleading their good intentions. That is not the point. We would not trust a Quaker Foreign Secretary. The people which is now half self-governing. I believe that there are very many Conservatives to whom our principles are not repugnant. We would far rather act by co-operation, but if strife it must be, there is nothing about it would strive with greater expectation of success than in favour of the principles of the Motion I now move.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The right hon. Gentleman in moving this Resolution presented it to the House as if it were a security against a future war. That is a proposition which I traverse entirely, and I hope I shall be able to pursuade the House that that is an entire misapprehension of the facts of the case. I want, however, in the first instance, for the House to understand exactly what it is the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is attempting by this Resolution to modify the prerogative of the Crown. I am not for a moment suggesting that this is not a thing which might not from time to time be done. I submit to the House, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman desires to modify the prerogative of the Crown, he is setting about it in the wrong way. I do not think that a Wednesday evening Motion, usually called a private Member's Motion—on this occasion brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman—is either the occasion or the manner in which so very important a change as this, surely of all ways, ought to be moved. The right hon. Gentleman held out as a sort of terrible threat to the House that, unless the Government accepted this Resolution to-night, the time might come when the Labour party, having the power to do so, might effect this change by Act of Parliament. I think that would be the right way to do it. If they want to make a change of this constitutional magnitude—though I shall show that in a practical sense it is not so very great—they ought either to do it by Act of Parliament or by an Address to the Crown. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are able to carry out the. policy which he has supported to-night, I think they will be very well entitled to do it by Act of Parliament, and I think it would be done better in that way than by a Resolution such as that he has moved. The right hon. Gentleman, and those who follow on the lines he has taken to-night, are in the habit of contrasting what they propose with the existing practice, as though there were a new diplomacy and an old diplomacy. The new diplomacy in its broadest aspect, which the right hon. Gentleman supports, is just about now attaining its centenary. The new diplomacy of the
right hon. Gentleman was introduced by Mr. Canning. These are his words:
Our influence. if it is to be maintained abroad, must be secure in its sources of strength at home. The sources of that strength are in the sympathy between the people and the Government, in the union of public sentiment with public counsels, and in the reciprocal confidence of the House of Commons and the Crown.

Mr. J. JONES: But the workers had no votes!

Mr. McNEILL: I have no hesitation maintaining that for at least 100 years the principles upon which foreign policy has been conducted in this country has been the dependence upon, and on the support., first of all of Parliament, and then of the country. People often maintain that we have less popular democratic control of foreign affairs than there is in some foreign countries, but. that I believe to be an entire mistake. I myself agree entirely with what was said by Sir Edward Grey (as he then was) on 27th May, 1909:
As a matter of fact, I think the House of Commons ready exercises more constant control over foreign policy than is usual in foreign Parliaments.
In this country, I submit, there are ample safeguards for popular control over foreign affairs, as things are at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if we could be committed to some very far-reaching obligation without either Parliament or the country knowing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "We were!"] I wonder if this House quite appreciates what engagements would be included under the terms of this Motion, which says:
That no Treaty shall be ratified and no diplomatic arrangement or understanding with a Foreign State
be concluded, as the Motion goes on. Let me first refer to important treaties, that is to say, treaties of the first class, which alone involve the sort of obligation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. They require, of course, ratification, and the existing practice in almost every such case is to require legislation before the treaty can come into force, and such legislation is presented to this Douse between the signature of the treaty and its ratification. Consequently, under the existing practice, there is, in all these cases at all events—I will discuss others in a moment—precisely that provision for popular control which the right hon. Gentleman advocates, precisely that pro-
vision for popular control which was involved in the procedure introduced by my right hon. Friend who was my predecessor at the Foreign Office. The opportunity for Parliamentary discussion comes when that legislation is introduced. But as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends lay so much stress upon the mere opportunity that Parliament has of discussing a treaty before it is ratified, I would like to point out to the House that, while that opportunity exists, the control that Parliament exercises is much more theoretical than real in those very cases; and the more important the treaty is, one may almost say; the less really effective control this House has or can have.
Many hon. Members must remember, as I do, the discussion, so far as it was a discussion, which took place in this House over the Treaty of Versailles. Everybody who has looked at it knows the sort of document the Treaty of Versailles is—500 and more clauses, concerned with boundaries, and the Covenant of the League of Nations, and a hundred most important matters covering the whole field of Europe, which have to be settled by that great instrument. When that treaty was presented to this House it was obviously out of the question that any Member should master its contents and be in a position really to offer any criticism of it when it was discussed in the House. Consequently, it was presented by the Government. of the day and was passed through after the most perfunctory examination by this House, because that was the only sort of examination which it is possible to give in cases of that sort. What I want to suggest is this, that the real commitment of the country—and that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—is not made when a treaty is ratified, but when it is signed, and there is no proposal from the bench opposite that Parliamentary control can h brought in before the treaty is signed; yet, as I say, that is when the real commitment takes place. The safeguard, and the only safeguard, that the country can have or will have, whatever procedure we adopt—the real safeguard—is that under our Constitution no Government would ever dare, if they were in their senses, to embark upon a treaty unless they were confident of the support
of this House, whether or not that was consequent on the support of the country outside or not.
So far as I know, there is only one exception to the rule, which, I think, one may lay down as a general rule, that no Government would ever sign a treaty until they were confident of support. The only exception that I know is a treaty that was signed by the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member, because there, I think, the Government not only were not confident of the support of this House, but were fully warned that they had not got it. They knew for certain, from the warning of the leaders of both the parties which, in combination, were in a majority in the House, that they were embanking on a course this House would not tolerate. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government Bench to which he belonged, signed that Russian Treaty on the very day that Parliament adjourned for a long Recess, committing the country, as we warned them they would do, to the terms of the Treaty, knowing that Parliament could not even criticise their action for some months. Then right hon. Gentlemen come forward and talk about the iniquity of secret diplomacy, or committing the country to anything without the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the answer that was given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the 15th December, and in consequence of that answer my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Ponsonby) used these words, and they have been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman this evening. He said:
In consequence of that answer the old era of secret Treaties is to be gone back to again.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests, also. that unless we accept his Motion there is no security that there might not be all sorts of secret treaties entered into for the suppression of this, that or the other, hostility to the Soviet Government, or in any other direction. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion may know, I do not think he has ever been at the Foreign Office. My hon. Friend who sits beside him must know perfectly well that there is no ground whatever for such a suggestion, because when he was at the Foreign
Office a question was put in this House on the subject of secret treaties, and the answer was given that there were no secret treaties in existence.
There are no secret treaties, and if there ever had been, he knows perfectly well not only that all treaties—at least practically all: I will not say there are none, because there may be some so trifling that they may have escaped me—but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all treaties are published in the treaties series: and as an additional precaution against the possibility of a secret treaty in these days, every engagement entered into by a member of the League of Nations has to be registered, and is registered, at Geneva.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether all clauses of all treaties are registered?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly all clauses of all treaties. The right hon. Gentleman although he represented that all he was attempting to do was to re-establish the procedure which the late Government introduced for a few months goes far beyond that, because all that so-called new procedure attempted to do was to lay upon the Table of the House for 21 Parliamentary clays all treaties requiring ratification. As I have already pointed out, in actual practice it would not make the smallest difference as regards those treaties requiring ratification.
The right hon. Gentleman, however, is going to sweep into his net a vast amount of instruments and engagements that do not require ratification at all, and I am going to tell the House something about them. Let me tell the House what the number in a single Session would be which could come under this rule. First of all there are treaties, conventions, and formal exchanges of Notes which must be regarded as amongst the more important clauses of instruments and engagements. In the Session of 1923 there were 59 of them, and in the Session of 1924 38 of them. In addition to that—I take the words of the Motion—there were diplomatic arrangements or understandings which come under this definition in a recent Session of no less than 106.
I would like to give the House some idea of what these arrangements are, and what they involve in the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman proposes
to introduce. I hold in my hand a list—and I do not believe even now it is exhaustive—of five closely typed pages giving the titles of engagements, diplomatic arrangements or understandings which we passed in a single Session. Let me take one or two samples. There is an agreement with Italy providing for reciprocity in medical practice. There is an agreement with Greece providing for reciprocity in medical practice. There is also another agreement with Austria for the reciprocal recognition of proof marks. There is an agreement for British protection of Afghans in Chinese Turkestan, another for the exchange of hotel waiters between Great Britain and Switzerland, and for reciprocal customs facilities for British and Norwegian diplomats and consuls. There is an understanding between Great Britain and Belgium regarding Consular marriages. All these arrangements, if this Motion were carried, would have to be laid upon the Table of this House for 21 days before they could be signed as they do not require ratification What would that, mean?

Mr. B. SMITH: It would mean the House knowing more than it does now.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. McNEILL: That would he the beginning and the end. Either there would be a demand for discussions of these innumerable instruments or there would not. I do not suppose there would be a great demand to discuss the interchange of waiters between Great Britain and Switzerland. If it is agreed that there should not he a discussion of these matters, why make a fuss about it? It is simply routine business carried on by the Foreign Office: although these arrangements are not of great national importance they would all come within the definition of this Resolution. Supposing we had discussions on these matters. That is the only way in which you can make Parliamentary control effective. If there is to be discussion, in other words if this Parliamentary control is to be a reality and not a sham, how many of these instruments do you suppose we could get through in the course of a Session? If these instruments had been lying for 21 days on the Table of the House and any hon. Member wanted to discuss any one of them and made a demand for discussion, this House would be doing nothing else except discussing
these engagements of a secondary character. I think that the late Under-Secretary will not contradict me when I say that in relation to some of these minor engagements the Labour Government found themselves at some inconvenience last year in consequence of their own action in relation to certain Conventions which my hon. Friend (Mr. Ponsonby) will recall. There was the case. of the international railway regime, and it happened to be important that it should obtain ratification in time to come before the Council of the League of Nations. That Council was in session in June of last year. It was therefore of considerable importance, for the sake of the influence upon other nations, that our ratification should be communicated to the Council of the League. I am not going to say that it was entirely, but it was very largely, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite had tied themselves to an utterly absurd rule that this instrument should lie upon the Table of the House for 20 days, and because the Whitsuntide Recess came at an inconvenient time, that it was not possible to get that instrument ratified in time to have it communicated to the League of Nations. There were some other difficulties, but if it had not been for the rule which the Labour Government had laid down that inconvenience could never have arisen.
It is quite true there was also this difficulty which might have been got over, and it is one which arises with regard to all our international engagements now, and that. is the necessity of obtaining the consent of all our Dominions before we enter into an international convention. But supposing this rule which is now proposed were carried, and it became necessary here, before ratifying even the most insignificant agreement, that it was to lie on the Table of this House for 21 Parliamentary days, can anybody imagine that any one of our Dominions would be content without having the same procedure in their own country? The consequence would be that every Parliament in the British Empire would have to have every one of these engagements lying on the Table of their own House for three weeks. May I also point out that they do not all sit simultaneously, and the real consequence
would be that a very large number of extremely beneficial international arrangements, although not of first-class importance, would be practically held up and could never be really carried through at all?
I want to say something about that part of the Motion which refers to preparations for co-operation in war. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a speech which was made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with relation to the events of July and August, 1914. If I may respectfully say so, I absolutely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said. I endorse every word of the speech, and I do not think that the interpretation put upon the speech by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was really the true interpretation, in the light of the actual historical facts. It would take too long to go into the facts, and I do not want to delay the House for that purpose. The real view is, not that difficulty arose or that evil was created by any secret engagement that we had entered into at that time, but by the fact that we had not implemented that agreement by a much more far-reaching pact, which would have notified to the world that in the events which actually did happen they would find us on the side of our Allies, instead of their imagining that we should possibly stand out. That, I am perfectly certain, is what was in my right hon. Friend's mind, and I think it is quite true.
The right hon. Gentleman's Motion applies not merely to the time of peace but to the time of war. Perhaps he thinks that there is never going to be another war. Of course, I cannot say whether the right hon. Gentleman holds that view or not, but if he is so confident that there is never going to be a war again, why does he talk about making preparations for co-operation in war? I do not think the rest of the House are inclined to accept the view that there never, in any circumstances, can he a war again. Let me take the hypothesis that we should at any time find ourselves in war, end perhaps under circumstances similar to the war of 1914. How should we be tied by the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman wants to introduce? We should have no definite pact or engagement, such as is referred to in the earlier part of the
Resolution. Consequently, it would not be lawful for us to make any preparations whatever for co-operation, either with allies with whom we might be fighting, or with potential allies whom it might be very desirable to bring on to our side.
The right hon. Gentleman referred especially to naval preparations. I do not think that I take the same view that he does with regard to the naval arrangements at the outbreak of war. My own impression is that the arrangements to which I suppose he was referring, namely, the arrangements which we then had with France which enabled us, and alone enabled us, to concentrate our Fleet in the North Sea instead of having it scattered in different parts of the world was most timely. It was a mercy of Divine Providence that that arrangement had been made, because when we found ourselves at war we were prepared to defend ourselves in the way we did. Military conventions differ in this respect from treaties which, as I say, cannot be secret, in that arrangements for military co-operation must either be secret or futile. Unless they are secret, they are obviously useless. Again, let me suppose ourselves at war, which God forbid. The right hon. Gentleman would make it unlawful while we were carrying on the war to arrange for co-operation between the allied armies. If he thinks, and he may think, that there should be no military conventions at all, then why does he not say so? He does not say that there ought to be no military conventions, but he says that we ought to have a procedure with regard to them which would make them perfectly useless.
The right hon. Gentleman has entirely left out of account what appears to me to be a. very important aspect of this subject. International relations and national obligations do not depend exclusively on treaties or conventions that are laid on the Table of this House. They have a negative as well as a positive aspect. To terminate a treaty may have just as momentous consequences as to sign one. To refuse to sign a proper treaty may be equally fraught with tremendous results to the nation. We are hearing a great deal at the present time about pacts and protocols, and they certainly involve very grave decisions. The gravity is or may be, equally great
when a decision is to attach a signature or to withhold it. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Resolution, has attempted to control one side, and one side only, of this great body of doctrines upon which our foreign relations depend. He does not touch the others.
As I have endeavoured to explain, his Motion, if carried, would make not the smallest difference whatever in the practice as regards treaties of the first class, but it would most mischievously hamper the efficiently of the whole conduct of our foreign policy in innumerable minor details which have no political or party colour in them whatever. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is an executive officer. You cannot deprive him of that position. Why should you strip him of all authority and all responsibility any more than his colleagues at the Colonial Office or the India Office or even the Home Office? The real and, as I believe, the only possible safeguard for real Parliamentary control over all these offices alike lies simply in the fact which is at the very root of the whole of our practice, and that is, that the Executive which is responsible for taking these actions is either to enjoy the, continuance of the confidence of a majority in this House or else immediately give place to others who possess it in a higher degree.

Mr. J. BECKETT: I had hoped that I might get an opportunity of saying something with regard to the secret diplomatists of all countries who, probably perfectly honestly and perfectly sincerely, flung the youth of Europe into the furnace of hate, horribleness and beastliness because of their own foolishness. Now that I have that opportunity, I am not going to waste my time or the time of the House replying to the arguments that have been put forward from the Front Bench opposite. We spend a lot of time in this House arguing whether we should have a capital or a Socialist system, whether things shall be owned by private individuals or, as I and some of my friends think, by the State. It does not matter by whom those things are owned if you are going to allow future war to come, and when Resolutions are brought forward, even if some hon. Members on the other side think that they are wrong, they do represent a genuine attempt to avert not just a
little war, not a punitive expedition, not just the bullying of a little country by a big one, but to avert a tragedy which anyone, especially a distinguished soldier, knows is going to be fatal to the evolution of the world.
I hope sincerely that the House will give this Resolution a fair hearing. You do not stop war or any of these horrors of human nature by those technical arguments, and cheap debating points, and the use of ponderous evasiveness. These things have got to be faced frankly. If we are wrong tell us how there is a better way of doing it, but for goodness sake do not get up in this House, as some of you do on every vital issue which is discussed, and quibble and carp at every suggestion which is put forward, and never have the shadow or gleam of a suggestion for doing anything yourselves. That is the disheartening factor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Address the Chair!"] The Chair probably would be more intelligent to address than some hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I beg your pardon. I should have said that the Chair might have understood what I am saying.
Last Friday the Prime Minister referred in this House to the suspicion which is preventing stability in Europe, and he said, and I believe in all sincerity, that his Government stood for the removal of that suspicion realising that unless you remove suspicion you cannot get down to the fundamentals of a decent, just, and lasting condition of things. I wish to suggest that if the Government reverse the policy initiated in this matter by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby), they are not likely to help to calm suspicion in other countries. May I quote from the "Osaka Asahi," a very prominent and progressive newspaper in Japan. It says:
That Japan would have to spend more money on her navy is held to be the inevitable consequence of the threat believed to he contained in a battle fleet on the borders of the Pacific.
Then the "Yomiuri," a Liberal paper of Tokio, points out that should Singapore be made a battlefield base, the defence and capacities of Malta, Aden and Colombo will have to be increased in proportion, and this, it considers, will imply a menace to France and Italy.
To-night we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Singapore base, but I suggest that you cannot afford to go on piling up armaments to increase your navy, army and air force and build expensive military bases in different parts of the world. To go on, not looking for war—I do not believe that anyone on that side wants war any more than we—but talking of possible enemies, of people who might possibly want to make war with you, and looking with suspicion at them makes them suspicious of you. Piling up armaments against them makes them pile up armaments against us. Before the War many people in Germany thought quite genuinely that we meant to attack them directly we got the opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, they were fooled by their politicians just as we were by ours and as we shall be again if we are not careful. So you get the nations of the world building armaments and entertaining suspicions of each other, nobody wanting war, but blundering on, each possessed of these suspicions, each piling up instruments until war is inevitable. Until we find a better way of conducting our national and international affairs another war will be inevitable just as the last war was inevitable. We have Admiral Takarabe, the Minister of Marine in Japan, saying:
Japan must now look to national defence, since Singapore is only two days from Formosa.
We have heard from those benches, and I do not wish to dispute it, that Singapore is not intended to be a menace to Japan, but in the "Times" last month we had a letter from a prominent publicist, Mr. Geoffrey Drage, who is closely connected with many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, in which he says:
In 1930 Japan will be ready, if not before. We are as we were in 1908. only Japan is far more clever than Germany.
and so on. I dwell for some time on that issue because it illustrates how war comes from the suspicion created by armaments and secret diplomacy, and so I believe that if we are going to avert war we must not go on in the spirit of looking for possible enemies, but we must look for possible means of averting enmities, and there is no possible way of averting enmities unless you are prepared to be open and above board in your conduct and in the handling of all these matters in connection with other nations. I
thought in 1918 and 1919 that this battle, which we are fighting all over again to-night, had been won, and that secret diplomacy and negotiating and bargaining with the people's lives behind closed doors was a thing of the past, and that we were going forward into a better era. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, from his speeches and writings, is manifestly a supporter of our policy, is not here.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He is ill.

Mr. BECKETT: I am very sorry that he is ill, and therefore prevented from coming and giving us the support in this matter which, I gather from his speeches and writings, he would have given. I am also sorry that the right hon. Gentleman whose words were read by the Mover of the Resolution cannot be here to repeat the inspiring message which apparently he gave to this House some years ago. You know what happened in the Army. These views were unpatriotic then with the great mass of the public, but the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench told us these things two years before they were popular and therefore was regarded as being unpatriotic. In the Army days we did riot get so much of that. At least that was not my experience. They read the speeches of the Gentlemen in this Chamber and then they said: "To hell with the war and politics!" and went on with the work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am quoting, you have all heard it. I dare say there are a good many men on that side of the House who have some personal knowledge of the fighting forces, who heard that phrase at least as many times as I did. That was the phrase during the War. After the War we got President Wilson of America. I know he was led astray. He was led astray by a gentleman who succeeded in leading the Conservative party astray for a very considerable time, and if that gentleman was clever enough to lead you astray, it ill behoves you to sneer at President Wilson, because he kept what you would regard as good company

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is rather far from the terms of the Motion.

Mr. BECKETT: I rather gathered that at this time of the evening some Members of the House were more in a mood to prefer amusement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] There are many more serious things that could be said about this Resolution, and if they were said, you would still have no right to call "Withdraw!" There is no object in mincing words. This Resolution means to us the safety of this country and the safety of all civilisation. We are not prepared, I am not prepared, and I have never spoken to any considerable body of people in this country who are prepared to allow right hon. Gentlemen on either Front Bench, but especially right hon. Gentlemen with the war and peace records of some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite bench, to handle in secret. in common with the Junkers of Germany, and of every other country, the future of the people of this country without protesting in Parliamentary language or any other language we are able to use.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
the existing procedure of this House already adequately secures the control of Parliament over Foreign Affair.
I am quite certain that no one on this side of the House, whatever they may think of the Resolution itself, will take any exception to the terms in which it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to say of the speech to which we have just listened that I am sure that there was real sincerity, although some of us took exception to some of the words uttered. Many of us are in complete disagreement with the practical suggestions contained in this Motion. I want to ask the House to consider what is the real motive behind this Resolution? What is the real gravamen which is urged by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite against the old diplomacy? The indictment, as I understand it. against the old diplomacy is that it is a mixture of turpitude and ineptitude, partly wicked and partly foolish; that it is wicked, and that in the past and especially the recent past, it has manifested in practice its hopeless incapacity. The very word "diplomacy" has, I quite admit, acquired a rather sinister connotation. Being an exact person, I turned
the word up in that invaluable work of reference, the Oxford Dictionary, and I find that there diplomacy is defined as
the management of international rations by negotiation.
That is all right. That is an innocuous pursuit. But the dictionary proceeds to quote, as illustrating the connotation and common usage of the word, a certain passage from a book published by Grattan in 1862 to this effect:
I can find no better signification for the word which typifies the pursuit of diplomacy than double dealing, which is expressive of concealment if not of duplicity.
That really, as I take it, summarises the gist of the whole complaint which is made from the opposite benches. I have sometimes thought that absolutely the most fatal gift. for a diplomatist is the gift of humour, for I believe that, if it had not been for an ambassadorial joke, the House of Commons would not have been engaged in this particular Debate tonight. The joke was made 321 years ago. It has stood the test of time. It was made by an English Ambassador on his way to Vienna, and he wrote in the album of a German merchant at Augsburg the words:
Legatos est vir bonus peregre misses ad mentiendum reipuiblicae causa.
I feared that hon. Gentlemen opposite would find my Latin so barbarous as to be unintelligible to them. So I will translate:
An ambassador is a good man, sent abroad to lie for the benefit of his country.
That joke was written in the album of a German merchant 321 years ago. I cannot resist the suspicion that diplomacy in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite has never quite recovered from the slur cast upon it by Sir Henry Wotton's jest. Possibly there was in the mind of Sir Henry Wotton the words of an earlier writer—about six years earlier—Carlo Pasquali, who wrote:
I want the ambassador to shine by truth the best assured of virtue. But I am not so boorishly exacting as entirely to close the lips of the envoy to official lies.
That is to say, lies uttered in the course of business. That utterance might tempt one to embark on a rather prolonged discussion of a casuistical nature, like the discussion initiated by Pilate when he
asked his famous question, "What is truth?" I resist that temptation; I think we may be content with the time-honoured definition of a lie, that "it consists in not telling the truth to one who has a right to know it."
That is really the core of the question raised by the Resolution before the House to-night. Or rather, I will put it thus: By what procedure in international affairs will the interests of this country and the world be best promoted? That is really the question which is raised in this Resolution. There is one point on which I am certain all parts of the House will agree, and it is this, that the supreme interest of this country is the maintenance of peace, and to maintain peace is the supreme business of the Diplomatic Service. War marks, not the triumph of diplomacy, but the failure of diplomacy, and that is nowhere better recognised than in the Diplomatic Service itself. It is the highest duty and the most persistent ambition of the diplomatists to maintain peace between nation and nation. To say, as hon. Gentlemen do, that. history, and particularly recent history, has exhibited a lamentable series of failures, is simply to say that human nature is a much more potent force than diplomacy.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now going rather wide of the question raised in the Motion.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I Neill try and conform entirely to your ruling. The point on which I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion is, that he and those who act with him imagine that the procedure which they propose in this Resolution is likely to make for peace. That is the real point at issue between us. I find no warrant for the assumption which lay behind the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I find no warrant for it in history or in human nature. May I try to bring it home to the House in this way? Suppose that, let us say, in the year 1910, the procedure recommended by the right hon. Gentleman had been actually in operation. Does he suggest that the adoption of the machinery suggested in this Resolution would have averted the War of 1914? That was the assumption which underlay the whole of
the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that is really the whole point of the discussion in which we are engaged to-night. I invite the House, therefore, to examine for a minute or two the implications of that suggestion.
I will frankly make the admission that I believe, and have always believed, that if Sir Edward Grey, as he then was, had been able to announce, even in July, 1914, that any act of hostility by Germany against France would bring the whole forces of Great Britain and the British Dominions into the field against the peace breaker, the peace might not have been broken. But now suppose that the procedure proposed in this Resolution had been actually adopted four or five years before the outbreak of war. Is there any hon. Member in this House to-night who would get up in his place and say that if the Government of that day, or any Government, had come down to the House of Commons and asked the House of Commons to give Parliamentary sanction to such a pact, it would have been granted? I say that there is not the faintest chance that the House of Commons would have approved it, let us say, in the year 1910. I am speaking of a military pact, of a military convention, and I say that the mere proposal in this House of such a military convention would have been regarded as provocative in the highest degree; and, as a fact, no such pact and no such treaty was in existence. We have that on the authority of all the responsible Ministers of that day. The formula agreed upon in 1912 between ourselves and the French Government was—and here I am quoting the words of the President of the French Republic of that time—simply hypothetical, and implied no firm obligation of reciprocal assistance:
The British Cabinet'—
and I ask the House to mark the words—
did not feel itself able to contract a positive obligation without Parliamentary sanction.
Those are the words of the President of the French Republic himself. And when he wrote to His Majesty on the very eve of the War, on the 31st July, 1914, what were his words? He wrote:
Undoubtedly. our military and naval engagements leave Your Majesty's Government entirely free.
I can imagine some hon. Gentlemen saying: "That is quite true; but there ought
to have been a treaty. Nothing less than a treaty, nothing else than a treaty, could actually have averted war." That may be so; it is an argument which I am certainly not going to traverse; but is that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution to-night? Will the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby), who sits beside him, if he speaks—as I hope he will—later in the Debate, tell us that there ought to have been au actual alliance, and that the terms of that alliance ought to have been indicated to this House? Is it not as clear as daylight that the necessity for obtaining Parliamentary sanction prevented the conclusion of such an alliance, which, in the then condition of European politics, could, by general admission, alone have averted war? And yet you are here to ask us to increase that measure of Parliamentary control. If this Resolution had asked that there should be in this House more ample opportunity for discussion of foreign policy, I should have very heartily agreed with it. If it had asked for a Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, I personally should have lent, at any rate, an attentive ear to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman—but, let me say clearly, on one absolute condition, namely, that the Committee should not be a rival Cabinet, that it should not in any degree diminish the direct and complete responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament, that it should not diminish the control of the whole House over foreign affairs.
I have lately been giving, as I expect a good many other Members of the House have been giving, close attention to the Reports recently obtained by the action of the late Prime Minister, for which I am sure the whole House must be grateful to him—the Reports which he was good enough to obtain from His Majesty's representatives abroad as to the procedure of foreign Parliaments for dealing with international questions. I gather that that very important document was not known to the hon. Member for Brightside at Question Time this afternoon, to my great surprise, as I thought he had been partly instrumental in obtaining it. A perusal of these memoranda might lead hon. Members to imagine that the British Parliament was in a position of exceptional impotence in
regard to control over foreign affairs, but I do not think, myself, from some knowledge of this matter, that that is at all the cases. It is perfectly true that the procedure of other Parliaments, as revealed in this White Paper, does provide for the setting up of a specific Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs; but, take the case, for example, of France on which there is a very long and interesting Memorandum from our British Ambassador in Paris. There is no country, certainly in Europe, where the committee system is so fully developed as it is in France. And what does Lord Crewe say in his reply to the Foreign Office? He says:
A study of he Parliamentary annals of the Third 'Republic shows that there are a number of matters of the first importance on which Treaties have been in fact concluded and ratified without a vote in either Chamber.
My impression, formed by a perusal of this document and by some little acquaintance with the subject, is that in actual practice this House possesses a greater measure of control over foreign policy than, perhaps, any Parliament in Europe.
I come back for one moment, in conclusion, to the core, as I understand it, of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It rests, as I take it, on two assumptions. The first is that the old system of diplomacy, of conducting international relations, has hopelessly broken down, has manifested its failure; and the second is that it has broken down by reason of the insufficiency of Parliamentary control. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will quarrel with my summary of his Resolution, and the assumptions on which it rests. My Amendment questions the accuracy of the diagnosis and denies the efficacy of the prescription. I would suggest, if I may, respectfully to the House, that we ought to distinguish between the objects of diplomacy and the mechanism of diplomacy. As to the objective of our foreign policy, of course, I quite agree that, in regard to the main outlines of our foreign policy, there cannot possibly be too much of Parliamentary discussion, too much of publicity, too much of control. But the mechanism, I suggest, must, in the interests of peace, be committed to
trained and expert hands, and you would defeat the supreme object of the machine if it did not effect that result. I will go further than that. I believe you will very soon discover that the ostentation of publicity is only the camouflage of concealment, an d that is the main reason why I would ask the House to reject the Motion and to assent to the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask the indulgence of the House if the lucidity of the arguments in a maiden speech are not what I should like them to be. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion spoke of the coterie of civil servants and soldiers. It so happens that I have been both, and though I am no hide-bound a prioriadmirer of the Foreign Office—if I were I should no doubt be listening to the Debate from the Gallery instead of taking part in it—I was struck by the ingenuousness of the right hon. Gentleman in proposing such a Motion at all after having tasted the sweets and the bitters of office for a short period last year. If my information is correct—I was not in England at the time—on the great day the Russian Treaty was signed the Under-Secretary announced it in this House, while his colleagues in another place would give no information. And yet Members of that party are asking for more information and more control for the House over foreign affairs. They apparently did not succeed in getting it in their own Government. The Under-Secretary has already dissected the terms of the Resolution, but I should like to point out the last words, the suggestion that if passed it should be communicated to all States and to the League of Nations. I shudder to think what the States concerned would think on receiving such a document. They would certainly say it was the business of this country to arrange its constitution as it pleased and it was none of their concern how foreign affairs or anything else were conducted here. The words in the Motion, that no understandings, etc., shall be lawful, convey little to me. Lawful to whom? In what way? Lawful to this House, lawful to the country, lawful to foreign countries I am in a fog. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned as one part of his indictment that he had no guarantee of what might be done by the
present Government. May I commend to his notice and that of the Gentlemen who sit behind him Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which reads:
Every Treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such Treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered 
That covers the procedure of our Foreign Office and of all the Foreign Offices of the members of the League. I think that would satisfy the demands of any reasonable enquirer after the truth.
I feel that we should keep this Debate down to the question of procedure all the time. We are not discussing foreign policy, or even whose fault it was that the War broke out. We are merely discussing the machinery: whether or not the present practice is sufficient for our purpose. I ask here, if you are going to have a Resolution passed saying that all Treaties are to be ratified, what is to be the machinery of the House to enable the discussion to take place? Does it mean that the House as a House is to meet and discuss every one of these multitudinous small agreements mentioned by my right hon. Friend? Does it mean a Committee of the Whole House, sitting as a Committee? Does it mean a Select. Committee or a Committee of 40 or 50 Members? It has not been touched upon, but it is to my mind extremely important, because the constitutional practice of this country—there is no getting away from it—is complete divorce between the three branches of Government, executive, legislative and judicial. This House is not an executive body. It is a deliberative assembly. We delegate to the right hon. Gentlemen who sit from time to time on that Front Bench the power and the authority to act on our behalf, and so long as they have our confidence and the confidence of the country, they are the proper and right people to be the executive.
Immediate past history last autumn, I should have thought, would have thrust this lesson deep into the consciousness of hon. Members opposite. They say, frequently, that this House and the country has not got sufficient control over foreign affairs, but what happened? I know that the ostensible cause of the Election was
not foreign affairs, but at the back of it the whole shadow that was cast over the Election was due to the fact that a treaty being signed which could not have the approval of this House and did not have the approval of the country. The late Prime Minister was perfectly right in this sense, that he acted upon his own responsibility. I do not blame him for that but where he went wrong was that the policy he supported was not that of the country. He was perfectly right to take the matter into his own hands as the Executive, but that was the beginning and end of it. I call to mind the first of the 14 points of the late President Wilson was, "open covenants of peace openly arrived at." He himself found it impossible to live up to that. When he got to Versailles it was soon a question of the big ten, and then the big five, and the big world outside was kept in the cold. The late Prime Minister, in August, 1923, said: "We must end all trust in secrecy. That phase of diplomacy ought to have been finished with the War. That volume ought to have been closed with a bang." The only bang that reverberated through the corridors of the Foreign Office was the explosion attendant upon the Russian Treaty.
10.0 P.M.
The conduct of foreign affairs must be in the hands of the few. There is no getting away from that. So long as we delegate our executive authority to the Government of the day it is up to them to carry it out with due authority in the Departments concerned. I am certain that you cannot expect to carry on delicate negotiations if you are going to have to bring down accounts of your interviews, your telegrams and your dispatches, your notes of communications, your minutes, your memoranda, anything you like into the body of the House or even into a Committee upstairs, because if you have that kind of Committee sitting on foreign affairs, it means that you have to bind them by the Official Secrets Act, and that means that 40 or 50 Members of the House will be given information which they could not pass on to other Members. Therefore we should be having the House turned into coteries of secrecy—Members and non-secrecy Members. We prefer to leave it in the hands of the Government of the day to explain to us, and there are plenty of opportunities of debating
their policy, but the actual methods of carrying it out must be left in the hands of the few. There is no doubt that a large Committee of this kind would have to spend a great deal of time in what I might call education. In a Committee of all parties on the League of Nations it is very remarkable what a large number who attend the meetings have never even read the Covenant, and yet that is a perfectly public document several years in antiquity. When it comes to discussing current business from day to day I shudder to think of it.
I take it that originally Ministers might be called the Crown in Commission. To-day they are the repository of certain powers in the House, and if we are to retract certain of those powers why should we stop at foreign affairs? Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. It would be much more sensible, if we wanted to do it, to set up committees of further investigation into matters of everyday interest which come into the lives of every single Member as representing his constituency, matters such as pensions, and so forth, where one can get the information immediately and directly. In foreign affairs you cannot get it unless you have made a study of them. You cannot go first to one country, say in the Near East, and then, say to South America. You have to trust your man on the spot, and that is what is done in the Foreign Office. Other countries deal by Committees, but other countries are not Great Britain. We are not a small Continental State. We are a large Empire, and you have to bear that in mind in discussing this question. The great classic example of a House entirely having control over foreign affairs, is in the United States Constitution. There the President and the Senate act together. They are the treaty making power. The President can only act with the consent of the Senate and on the advice of the Senate, with a two-thirds majority, and sitting in secret session, and I have yet to learn that any hon. Member opposite proposes to give any such power to another place. Cabinet Ministers in the United States are not members of Congress, and, therefore, this procedure of the Committee system is adopted. But even so, in connection with what the right hon.
Gentleman opposite said about the trifling affairs which come up, it is worth bearing in mind that there is still waiting on the floor of the Senate a Treaty signed in 1897, which has not yet been ratified. Why, I am afraid I am unable to tell the House.
But the point I want to make, and to keep on making, is that you cannot conduct negotiations in the open all the time. When they have been conducted and before the decision is reached, well and good, but the actual conduct cannot he done in that way, and I attribute to a large extent the failure of a good deal of the foreign policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to the great indiscretion and leakage which occurred, not through his fault at all and not in London, but in other places, when he was Prime Minister. They certainly did adversely affect our foreign policy at the time. It was not at all his golf-playing propensities. It was too much leakage. The Foreign Secretary only last Thursday said:
It is my object at all stages in conducting the foreign affairs of the country to take the House of Commons and the country, and especially the House of Commons, into the fullest confidence that circumstances permit, because it is only in that way that we can hope to arrive at a national policy, and in the sphere of foreign affairs above all it is desirable that our policy should be national and not party.
I think we can safely continue with the present methods of procedure both now and in the far future, and we have to remember all the time that the procedure adopted here would have to be duplicated and triplicated in all the Parliaments of the Empire. The conduct of foreign policy would become impossible. The present difficulty is to make the executive voice of the Empire heard in foreign policy at all. If you are also going to add control at every stage of the proceeding by six or seven Houses of Commons, I am afraid that very little will be done. It is because I feel that the present method, like so many others in our Constitution, has been gradually built up during centuries and does meet the case, that I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Major CRAWFURD: It. is, perhaps, hardly for me to interpret the feelings of the Ho-use, but I am perfectly sure that I shall be saying what. everyone would
have me say when I extend a word of congratulation to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. He began his speech with expressions of modesty, but we all realise that he has given us at any rate an example of lucidity and has drawn largely from his own varied experience. He has also conferred the benefit on this House, not that he has argued for open diplomacy, but that he has given us what I am sure is an example above the average of a diplomat in the open. I want to take up one phrase of his which I would like to traverse with all good feeling, a phrase which we on this side regard as expressive of so much that we dislike and distrust, not that we distrust the hon. Member. I understood him to say that foreign affairs should be in the hands of the few. We do not believe that. I am reminded by one of my hon. Friends that the present Lord Privy Seal, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under his distinguished father, was definitely forbidden ever to answer a supplementary question. That is what we dislike, because we realise that more often than not it is the supplementary question which is really designed to get the information.
I suppose that this Resolution has been moved in the interests of peace. Therefore, those who count themselves the friends of peace should not quarrel amongst themselves. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in some of the remarks which he made in moving the Resolution—remarks with which I should profoundly disagree with him, as to events in the past. I do not think that very much good is done or will be done by dwelling on the past, on the events before the War, except that we can draw this lesson: that those who had charge of events then could not work in any way that was in advance of the practice of their day. Even hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who held office in the last Administration could not do more in the way of open diplomacy than those with Whom they were negotiating would allow them to do. But when I come to contrast the terms of the Resolution and the terms of the Amendment, I have not the slightest doubt as to which my Friends and I should cast our votes fox. I cannot pretend to sympathise with the objections that were alleged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Whether the
treaties which he enumerated as being amongst those documents and instruments that would lie upon the Table of the House are concerned with the interchange of waiters with Switzerland or the preventing of the interchange of goods with all the countries of the world, I do not think that argument really touches the question which we are debating, for it is obvious that hon. Members of this House will select from amongst all those treaties only those that really have an important bearing upon the question of peace. Nor am I able to follow the suggestion that the War might have been avoided, if I might paraphrase the words quoted, "if we had openly threatened Germany." That is what the argument comes to.
This Motion really does not go far enough. My experience since I have been a Member of this House tells me that the wording of the Amendment really represents exactly the opposite of what I believe to be the facts. The existing procedure of this House does not secure the control of Parliament over foreign affairs. Of that I am perfectly sure. Nobody would wish to make any kind of attack on the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, more particularly in his absence. But at this moment I do not know what is the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing. I quite agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken—that a House of Commons of this size cannot discuss the everyday procedure of negotiation. What. T submit is that we do not know the main lines of the foreign policy that is being pursued. The other day we had a Debate on foreign affairs, and we on these benches tried to get information from the Government as to what their intentions were on certain points. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was proceeding the next day to what would be a very important, and what may well prove to be a very vital, conference amongst the great Powers of Europe. Surely it is not too much to ask that this House, representing the people, whatever party may have a majority, should have some voice in saying what representations the Foreign Secretary is to make when he gets to that conference. If this House cannot do that, I do not know for what purpose the House has been called together. I am certain in
my own mind that, whatever the technical difficulties may be, if the procedure outlined in the Motion should become the normal procedure, this is meant to be an expression of opinion from this side of the House that there should be more direct control of foreign affairs by the representatives of the people. The last speaker talked about the control of foreign affairs by the few. As a rule the few do not pay and do not suffer. I do not want to use as an argument on this question what was once described from the other side of the House as "sob stuff," but I do want to say that those people who suffer cruelly should have the chance of deciding these things for themselves, and our experience of diplomacy up to date has not been happy enough to help us to trust it to go along as it has gone so far. As between the Resolution and the Amendment, I have in my own mind not the slightest doubt. I and those who think with me must vote for the Motion.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution for the specific character of its terms. It is not the stammering utterance of a commentator, hut is the Law and the Prophets, the full evangel of the doctrine of democratic control, and I do not think he will regard me as impertinent or patronising if I say it is extremely difficult to express that doctrine. Let me put it in another way. It is extraordinarily easy in this matter to attempt to score points off your opponent by arguing against just what he did not say, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is hound to me by the tenderest of all ties, that of constituent and Member of Parliament, will correct me if I misrepresent him in any way. We on this side do not believe that the other side think we are opposing this Motion because we are in favour of secret, or, as I prefer to call it, bureaucratic diplomacy. There are many Members here who have ventured into that fascinating region where the old art of diplomacy makes touch with the new science of publicity, and they, at any rate, realise that frequently the contrary or opposite of open diplomacy is not secrecy, but the rumour of the bazaar. I see seated beside the right hon. Gentleman the hon.
Gentleman who was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the last Government, and I am going to read a statement of the case in terms which he has included in one of his books. He says
Those who desire reform have been accused of demanding that the Foreign Secretary should place his cards on the table, thereby exposing his hand and spoiling the game, but this has never been the demand. What is asked, is that we should be fully informed as to what game he is playing since the stakes he is playing with are the nation's honour, and the people's lives, If we are ignorant of the nature and object of the game, we are clearly at his mercy. We cannot alter the course lie is taking, because we do not know what it is, and we cannot tell whether his failure, if and when he fails, is due to the strength of his opponent's hand or his own want of skill.
If I may say so with the greatest respect, that appears to me to be very finely said. More than one hon. Member upon this side of the House, although they might have expressed it in slightly different terms, would generally subscribe to that doctrine, because it gives a valuable distinction between what, after all, is a control of policy and a control of negotiation, but, beyond that, it is a very clear indication of the catastrophe which must occur when, or if, there be a divorce between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the House of Commons. When I have said this, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that this all but connubial bliss and mutual comprehension which should exist between the statesman and the Legislature will be promoted or retarded by the regulation of constitutional minutiæ and the incorporation of those minutiæ in our own theory and practice of government. For what is proposed is this: Let us look at the Motion and get it clear. It is the inauguration of a new practice, a practice which will render it possible for a debate to be held on any proposed treaty with a foreign power, not. merely on those treaties on which the Executive of the day deliberately invites the opinion of Parliament, either because it knows legislation will be needed to carry out the treaty, or because the treaty raises an issue of overpowering importance and it wishes to be certain that it has Parliamentary and national opinion behind it.
Let me look again at the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The very reference to the general staffs and the agreements which they may make indicates,
I submit, that he realises that treaty making is not the only, not possibly the most important, mechanism of diplomatic action. I believe there is one authority on international law who enumerates no fewer than 11 ways in which one State can hold intercourse with another, and that is not merely, I submit, the pedantry of the textbook, because I can see hon. Members around me now who saw at close quarters President Wilson bringing a great country into the War against Germany without ever making a treaty, or thinking of making one, and I ask the right hen. Gentleman if, in screwing up treaty making too tightly, in rendering it too formal, there is not a danger of encouraging other and less tangible methods of negotiation. I am not suggesting for a minute that all the other methods of negotiation arc bad, nor that the right hon. Gentleman himself maintained that they wore. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember that we were told, ad nauseam, that a new diplomatic technique had been discovered, the technique of gesture, and, upon my word, I am not certain that there is not something rather infectious in the virus but even there I believe he is following a will-o'-the-wisp in attempting to put our foreign affairs into commission.
The technique of gesture is not as old as sometimes we are told it is, hut it is surely a necessary adjunct to diplomacy. It has this, surely, very clearly about it, that it is one of those operations which is better performed solo than in chorus. The right hon. Gentleman is very adroit and skilful. If and when he is our next Minister of Foreign Affairs, can he be certain that he can lead behind him the members of his own and other parties in a gesture and in a disciplined and practised chorus? I do not know, but when my eye passes to some of the higher benches above and below the Gangway, I have a suspicion that a charming but rebellious beauty may burst in and destroy what should be an English ballet by a few paces specially imported from Moscow or even a suspicion of the Highland fling. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member for Bridgeton would oblige!"] As has been said before to-night, in our Constitution the treaty-making power is
vested in the Crown. Is it wise to disturb it'? I am not speaking from any stick-in-the-mud, do-nothing point of. view when I suggest that experience has shown that the claim of the Legislature to have a voice in treaty-making rarely rests within the limits of prudent moderation, that the right to be consulted about every treaty becomes the power to withhold or to give a conditional con-sent to ratify. The French Constitution of 1871 defined a class of treaties in which the co-operation of the Legislature was necessary, but it was not 20 years before, in 1891, over the Inter-National Brussels Act against the slave trade, that the Chambers were refusing to ratify until certain, to them, obnoxious Clauses had been removed. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, in that very able maiden speech of his, called attention to the United States, and successive Presidents have found themselves faced by Senates which refused to ratify unless alterations were made. "Excellent," the right hon. Gentleman may say, "here is indeed democratic control." But has he estimated the full effect of minimising the position of the plenipotentiaries charged with the making of agreements? In proportion as they feel that the decisions of the plenipotentiaries are subject to revision, I believe that the nations will find a tendency for their treaty-making propensities to be atrophied. Let me quote the comment of a distinguished American critic from another point of view, an utterance recently made by a gentleman very much respected in the country, and a former American Ambassador (Mr. J. W. Davis). Speaking last year at the Conference of American Bar Association he said:
It does not contribute to national influence, prestige, or safety that the process of ratifying or rejecting Treaties should degenerate into an endeavour to discover some qualifying formula acceptable to the minority. There is grave danger in forgetting, whether in matters domestic or foreign, that the business of the Government is to govern.
Of course, it is possible by legislative-act to change the constitution. Innovations are always taking place: hut I believe the most experienced parliamentarians will tell us that the most natural and most safe innovations take place, not in the mechanism of the constitution itself, but in the spirit of the statesmen or composition of the electorate who work
it. That may make English constitutional history difficult to write, but it also makes it extremely difficult to forecast what will be the result of changes in our constitution. When in 1649 the Act was passed establishing a Commonwealth in England, it laid it down that
the people of England and all the Dominions and territories thereunto belonging are to be governed by the supreme authority of the nation, the representatives of the people in Parliament,
although at that time the inhabitants beyond the sea were not represented in Parliament, and were outside the Realm. Few saw by that momentous change that the first step had been taken towards the loss of the American colonies.
I would rather that my tongue withered in my mouth than that I should say anything disrespectful of this House, but I cannot help asking whether the right hon. Gentleman, in making this new and unprecedented claim for the House, unknown to the constitution and never claimed before in responsible quarters, is not equally blind to the claims of the Dominions, the people over the sea. Either he claims unique and superior authority for this Legislature, or, if he has the other Legislatures in mind, he must, as the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said, be prepared to see before every treaty, not two Debates, one in this House and one in another place, but ten Debates in the various Dominions over the seas.
There is one other point. In accepting the distinction made by the hon. Gentleman on the front row opposite between the control of policy and the control of negotiation, or, one may say, interference in negotiation, would not they be inviting just this interference in negotiation if they merely summoned Parliamentary co-operation at the eleventh-hour stage, a stage at which the Treaty is drawn up and is ready for application? And I think there is this added consideration, that at this late stage co-operation would he useless. If any hon. Gentleman will read in the Parliamentary Reports of the Debates upon the Anglo-French Agreement of 1904, or the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907, he will see that if there had been anyone at that stage so perverse as to disbelieve in the Anglo-French Entente, and had wished to
emphasise its danger, the time to urge such considerations was not when the diplomats of both sides had constructed, in the face of great difficulties, a delicately-balanced compromise, and that the method by which to urge them was not that of picking a hole in some one or other of the clauses out of innumerable clauses dealing with Newfoundland fishing rights, Egypt, Morocco, Siam or Afghanistan. It is just because of the realisation that it is useless to interfere at that stage that Governments have been tempted to publish their agreements after the House rose, and that in the old days the period between September and February became a kind of lambing season for the Foreign Office. That was not done to create an atmosphere of mystery, but it was a tribute to the unreality of debate at that stage, and the danger of intemperate criticism.
Let us have all confidence between the Foreign Secretary and this House; realising that need not and does not depend upon machinery. Last week, was it the Standing Orders, or a speech impregnated. with charity, which most truly embodied for this High Court of Parliament that sense of unity in service to the nation? Not machinery, I believe. And if there is anyone who is a sceptic as to that, I ask him to look at the map of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour told us he had displayed in a prominent place a chart indicating the ebb and flow of unemployment. I believe that side by side might go the map of Europe; that map with its boundaries showing geography defying the laws of religious and economic gravitation, that Europe in which emigration to the United States has been cut off, and the back flow which has meant 30 much to European policy. If one looks at that map and tries to approach it in a spirit removed from party politics, whichever party may be in power it may be necessary to keep the diplomatic sword as sharp as the sword of temporal defence. I believe that sword will be kept by my right hon. Friend in the scabbard, but it will be kept sharp. I do not believe that the people of this Empire will treat with mercy anyone who allows that sword to grow blunt.

Mr. PONSONBY: I have been pounding away at this subject for the last 15 years, and I thought while the Labour
Government was in power that I had the privilege of making a very necessary change in the procedure of this House. The Under-Secretary has told the House that the change proposed by the Mover of this Resolution—which really amounts simply to a change equivalent to that effected by the Labour Government last year—would not make the smallest difference. Those were his words. To show what a difference of opinion we have had this evening the Member for Cambridge (Sir G. Butler), who has just spoken, regarded the proposal of my right hon. Friend as an unprecedented claim, and as something that was quite beyond the present Constitution. Again, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said that it would modify the prerogative of the Crown. Nay I say that it would do no such thing.
The prerogative of the Crown is the power of ratification. This House has no power of ratification, and we do not ask that it should have any such power. What we ask is that this House shall have an opportunity of sanctioning a treaty before it is ratified by the Sovereign, and in that there is no modification of the prerogative of the Crown. I find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, not only on this point but on many others, a very remarkable ignorance of what our procedure involved in the last Parliament, and what is the actual constitutional position. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that we became so entangled in our procedure that we could not get on because treaties had to remain for 21 days on the Table of the House. There was no such thing. I can recall no single instance where there was the smallest delay. The procedure worked perfectly smoothly. The idea of placing a treaty on the Table of the House 21 days before the ratification was a very simple procedure, merely to allow the House an opportunity of expressing its approval of the treaty. So simple was that, and so simple was our declaration that. we intended to make all agreements and understandings public, that what we apprehend is the danger that may result from a reversal of our policy by the present Government. If the present Government had not taken the step that we took we should not have been surprised, but that they should go out of their way to reverse the decision, once made, when it
was working smoothly, must of necessity make the country suspicious that they desire to conceal from the country and from this House certain treaties and certain agreements.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this Motion would make no difference whatever. It certainly would make a difference. There are two notable instances of Treaties that have not been submitted to this House before ratification. One was the Anglo-Russian Agreement in regard to Persia in 1907, which was never brought before this House, and only debated several months after ratification. The other was the continuance of the Japanese Alliance, in 1905 I think it was, which was not submitted to this House. There was vehement protest at the time that the House had not the opportunity of discussion before ratification.
The present Government have the constitutional power of concluding treaties, concluding agreements, making secret understandings, and allowing military and naval experts to come to agreements with the naval and military experts of other countries, without this House being informed. That is the point which we wish to bring before the House. There has been a too frivolous note running through many speeches. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) could hardly get to grips with this question. He gave us some chestnuts. There ought to be some time limit on the age of chestnuts. He asked me a definite question. He asked, whether I thought that if our engagement with France had been publicly known before 4th August, 1914, it would have made any difference to events at that time. I most distinctly think it would. I entirely agree with the Foreign Secretary who, in the quotation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), said that it might have made all the difference. What we are asking to-night is that this House should be informed of agreements, and that the country should know the obligations that they have undertaken and which they may be called upon to discharge by the sacrifice of their lives.
I did not think that we should get through this Debate without some reference to the Russian Treaty. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary
goes a great deal further than we do in this Resolution. He says that the House of Commons must be consulted before a treaty is signed. That is a view at which. perhaps, I shall arrive at some future time, but I am not as advanced as my right hon. Friend in that respect.

Mr. McNEILL: I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. PONSONBY: The right hon. Gentleman, within the recollection of the House, taunted me and my right hon. Friend who was Foreign Secretary at that time with having signed the Russian Treaty without consulting this House. I admit that the negotiations with regard to the Russian Treaty were extremely difficult and extremely intricate—so difficult and so intricate that the present Government do not even dare to make a start. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that. there is not any danger at all now—
You can trust us because by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 18. all treaties have got to be registered and have got to be published by the League of Nations.
I think that Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is a most admirable Article if it be carried out. We know that it has already been broken. The Franco-Belgian Military Convention is registered but not published. As the right hon. Gentleman said, these Conventions cannot be published because, if they were, their effect would be spoiled. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that his naval and military advisers are not at this moment having conversations with the naval and military experts in other countries?
We find ourselves to-day in an extremely critical position. We find that the Government have gone out of their way to repudiate and to revise a very simple method of procedure for preventing secret treaties, and have gone out of their way to repudiate a small but very necessary safeguard which would prevent this House from being taken in and deluded as it was in 1914. The hon. Member who has just sat down was kind enough to refer to certain passages that I had written on this subject, and I hope that he saw me blushing, but towards the end of the speech he rather taunted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Oppo-
sition with having been an expert in the technique of gesture. The change that has come over Europe since my right hon. Friend left the Foreign Office has been very noticeable. Hon. Members opposite may attach very little importance to gesture and to atmosphere, but they must know that it is not the formidable nature of an obstacle that matters, but it is the spirit in which the obstacle is faced, and that two people who are ready to come to an agreement may overcome great difficulties, whereas two people who are in discord may find that the very smallest technical difficulty upsets them altogether. It was the spirit and the atmosphere which my right hon. Friend created in Europe which made a very great change. Look in all quarters and you will see the change. That is why we feel that this Resolution is very necessary at the present moment. We feel that there is the greatest necessity for confidence between the Foreign Secretary and the House of Commons. The present Foreign Secretary has quoted already, and I should like to give the House a very short quotation from a speech he made in Birmingham in February, 1914. He said
I sometimes ask myself whether in future it will not be necessary and indeed if it would not be a good thing that the Foreign Secretary should take the House of Commons in the first instance and his fellow-countrymen at large in the second, much more into his confidence than he has done, in the past. We have passed in recent years through European crises, the full gravity of which was not realised by our people, if realised at all. I ask myself, Can you conduct democratic government on those principles?
That is what he thought in 1914. As we look to-day into Europe, as we listen to the Foreign Secretary as we did last Thursday, we learn nothing at all. The speech to which we listened last Thursday was one which was full of generalities, giving us no lead, no suggestions with regard to what policy he was pursuing, and he goes out to Geneva and he may be, for all we know, committing us to an engagement here or there without our knowledge, without our sanction, without the approval of this country. There is nothing to prevent him doing that. We want a check to prevent him doing that. We say that the Foreign Secretary has entirely altered the tone and temper of the whole controversy with
regard to reparations and the Franco-German position. Where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition used the method of conciliation, the present Foreign Secretary has gone back to the method of dictation. In all quarters we see him adopting the imperious, arrogant method. It is a matter of common talk in the Press of Europe that there has been a considerable change. The German Chancellor said the other day he wanted to get back to the atmosphere of The London Conference, because in the London Conference he had an opportunity of coming and consulting side by side with the Prime Minister and Ministers of other States. Now he is told that he has got to do this. He is dictated to and he is not allowed to come and, by means of consultation and co-operation, to settle these great differences which exist.
We do see a very great change in the atmosphere of foreign affairs. We come down to this House and we ask that the House should be informed of the commitments and obligations which we as a nation undertake, and the Under-Secretary gets up and refuses us any such thing. It will be noted throughout Europe and the world that this Government want to reserve to themselves the right of making secret treaties and secret engagements. That is the only interpretation. There is no difficulty about the procedure. There is no infringement of prerogative. There is no possible objection to the practice we adopted being carried out. My right hon. Friend who moved this Resolution very rightly said the next time we have a chance we will not introduce it as a practice, but we shall have to introduce it by legislation. The Under-Secretary laughs, thinking, I suppose, that the Labour Government will never have a chance. I think those Smiles and that laughter are perhaps a

little unwise, but I feel about this whole question that we go very much too slow in this House. I have been in this House since 1908, except for the bogus Parliament of 1918. I see the House drifting along the same way, I see us beginning on the old slippery slope, discussing expenditure on armaments, scoffing at all the various proposals made in the direction of peace.

I think that an appeal must be made more directly to the people outside. They have learned what war means. They know that at the time of the declaration of war, owing to their ignorance, they are deluged with falsehood. I think an appeal must go out to them to take the law into their own hands, because, after all, Cabinets and Governments cannot wage war without men. Pile up your armaments, but if the people refuse to use them, then you will have to adjust your diplomacy accordingly. And you can adjust your diplomacy accordingly. You know now that the people would not fight at this moment. There have been more causes for war, if ever there was a cause for war, since 1918 than there ever were in the seven years before 1914 and yet you have not fought—and you have not fought because you know the people would not fight. [Interruption.] I want to make an appeal direct to the people to keep in that mood, and to prevent them from being taken in by the subterfuges and falsehoods which precede a declaration of war; and if we move slowly in this House of Commons they will make a great advance towards the peace of the world.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 255.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Duncan, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, A.
Clues, W S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barr, J.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenall, T.


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Stephen, Campbell


Hardle, George D.
Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, J. (St Rollox)


Harney, E. A.
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Paling, W.
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst. G. H.
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Warne, G. H.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Wignall, James


Lee, F.
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lindley, F. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


MacLaren, Andrew
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Maxton, James
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T. Kennedy.


Montague, Frederick
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T. Kennedy.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gretton, Colonel John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway. Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cooper. A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cope, Major William
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cooper. J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hanbury, C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atkinson, C.
Craig, Captain C. C (Antrim, South)
Harland, A.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harrison, G. J. C.


Baldwle, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crook, C. W.
Harlington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bethell, A.
Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G


Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Blundell. F. N.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hilton, Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dreve, C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Brass, Captain W.
Elveden, Viscount
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Briscoe, Richard George
England, Colonel A.
Homan. C. W. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Maj. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newh'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brown Lindsay, Major H.
Fielden, E. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh. S.
Huntingfield, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midlin & P'bl's)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Forrest, W.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Jacob, A. E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gee. Captain R.
Jephcott, A. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grace, John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Knox, Sir Alfred




Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Perring, William George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Loder, J. de V.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry Deans, R.


Looker, Herbert William
Philipson, Mabel
Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lougher, L.
Pitcher, G.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Price, Major C. W. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rains, W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Macintyre, Ian
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinne, J. A.


McLean, Major A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macmillan Captain H.
Remer, J. R.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wells, S. R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Margesson, Captain D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Trynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shepperson, E. W.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Nuttall, Ellis
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Oakley, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
colonel Gibbs and Captain


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Douglas Hacking.

Question proposed, "That those he there added."

Mr. MAXTON: rose—

It being after Eleven of tree Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the boroughs of Bideford and Great Torrington, the urban district of Northam, and parts of the rural districts of Bideford, Barnstaple, and Torrington, all in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 10th day of February, 1925. be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bredbury and Romiley, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 10th day of February. 1925, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922 and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Calne and the
parish of Calne Without, in the rural district of Calne, in the county of Wilts, which was presented on the 10th day of February, 1925, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922. and con firmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Thurston-land, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 10th day of February. 1925, be approved.

Resolved.
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922. and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of East Horsley, West Horsley, and East Clandon, in the rural district of Guildford, and part of the parish of Chessington, in the rural district of Epsom, in the county of Surrey. which was presented on the 10th day of February, 1925, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.